Attorney-Client Privileged and Confidential

Contains Garrity-Protected Information

Not for Public Dissemination

City of Hamtramck:
Investigation Report
August 24, 2025
 Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Executive Summary .................................................................................4

A. Police Chief Jamiel Altaheri ....................................................................................4

B. Officer David Adamczyk .........................................................................................6

C. City Manager Max Garbarino ..................................................................................7

II. Investigation Scope and Procedure ......................................................................................9

III. Findings and Analysis ........................................................................................................11

A. Policies, Procedures, and Other Authorities Governing the City’s

Employment Relationship with Altaheri, Adamczyk, and
Garbarino ........................................................................................................11

B. General Background ..............................................................................................11

C. Allegations Against Police Chief Jamiel Altaheri .................................................13

1. Wiping his cell phone and obstructing the internal

investigation ...............................................................................................13

2. Operating a City-issued vehicle after consuming alcohol

and related violations of HPD’s rules and regulations...............................14

3. Providing a loaded gun to a civilian and instructing her in a

manner inconsistent with proper procedures .............................................25

4. False incident reporting and related misconduct pertaining

to domestic disturbances at Altaheri’s home .............................................28

5. Facilitating recovery of a stolen vehicle in a manner

inconsistent with proper procedures ..........................................................30

6. Creating Hamtramck ID cards for Mark Zarkin ........................................34

7. Other miscellaneous allegations against Altaheri ......................................39

D. Allegations Against Officer David Adamczyk ......................................................41

1. Recording other officers and lying about it during his

interview ....................................................................................................41

2. Attempting to rig the sergeant’s examination, still finishing

second, and using his allegations against Altaheri as
leverage to seek promotion anyway ...........................................................42

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 2|Page

 3. Participating in the improper recovery of the stolen vehicle .....................46

4. Committing overtime abuse or timecard fraud ..........................................47

5. Other miscellaneous allegations against Adamczyk ..................................52

E. Allegations Against City Manager Max Garbarino ...............................................52

1. Acting imprudently with respect to Adamczyk’s hiring ............................52

2. Placing Altaheri on administrative leave ...................................................55

3. Garbarino’s prior separation agreement with the City ...............................56

4. Other miscellaneous allegations of misconduct.........................................57

5. Conduct at the City Council meeting on June 10, 2025 ............................58

IV. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................59

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 3|Page

I. Introduction and Executive Summary

The City of Hamtramck retained Miller Johnson to conduct an independent, objective

investigation of allegations against Police Chief Jamiel Altaheri, Officer David Adamczyk, and
City Manager Max Garbarino and provide legal advice to the City based on its investigative
findings. In subsequent correspondence, the City and Miller Johnson agreed on a defined scope
for the investigation and Miller Johnson provided a preliminary update on the steps taken to
complete the investigation.

As detailed below, Miller Johnson undertook a comprehensive investigation that required

the collection and review of an extraordinary volume of information. To date, Miller Johnson has
obtained more than 670,000 documents, which were uploaded to a secure review platform and
analyzed using targeted searches to isolate relevant material. Miller Johnson also retained an
outside, independent e-discovery vendor to perform forensic extractions from multiple sources—
including hard drives, cell phones, and the City’s network server—and employed a dedicated
document-review team to assist in processing the results. The forensic extraction reports alone
spanned thousands of pages, all of which were carefully reviewed for corroborative evidence.

In addition to document review, Miller Johnson conducted approximately 40 witness

interviews, including extensive interviews of the three principal subjects of the investigation.
Miller Johnson also reviewed voluminous audio and video recordings and contacted multiple law
enforcement agencies as well as external entities to corroborate allegations and test the
credibility of key claims.

The following report details Miller Johnson’s investigative findings and conclusions,
beginning with an executive summary of what was uncovered. Due to the extensive volume of
evidence collected and analyzed during the investigation, not all information is included in this
report. Only the most relevant findings have been summarized to ensure clarity and focus on the
key issues.

A. Police Chief Jamiel Altaheri

The investigation substantiated several of the allegations against Police Chief Jamiel
Altaheri.

Destroying evidence and obstructing the investigation. When Altaheri was placed on
administrative leave by Garbarino, one of Altaheri’s first reactions after leaving Garbarino’s
office was to wipe his City-issued phone. Altaheri directed an evidence technician (and
Altaheri’s friend) to erase the data on his phone. The technician immediately did so. Altaheri’s
directive to destroy evidence violated multiple City policies.

Driving his City-issued vehicle after consuming alcohol. The investigation substantiated a
widely known instance of Altaheri driving recklessly in his City-issued truck after consuming
alcohol. The evidence established that on September 19, 2024, after attending an officer-
appreciation party and consuming alcohol, Altaheri drove to and from a strip club, with other
officers riding with him, in his City-issued truck. He activated his police lights to run red lights
and drove erratically. Multiple witnesses observed him consuming significant amounts of alcohol
and/or appearing inebriated before driving that night. Multiple officers also witnessed him

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 4|Page

driving recklessly. Videos of his driving taken that night confirm their account, including
showing Altaheri activating his police lights to run a red light and then immediately turning off
his lights after he drove through the intersection with no plausible legitimate justification.
Altaheri’s conduct on that occasion violated the rules and regulations of the Hamtramck Police
Department (“HPD”). In addition to this significant incident, the investigation revealed other
likely instances in which Altaheri consumed alcohol before driving his City-issued truck.

Reducing another officer’s discipline in exchange for the destruction of evidence. The
video of Altaheri’s reckless driving also gave rise to another violation of HPD’s rules and
regulations. A few months after the reckless driving incident, it was discovered that an HPD
officer had committed timecard fraud. The officer, however, had a copy of the reckless driving
video. During the officer’s recorded disciplinary hearing, the officer should have been terminated
or forced to resign in lieu of termination for timecard fraud, and Altaheri concluded as much.
However, prior to the hearing’s conclusion, Altaheri and the other officers involved in the
disciplinary proceeding went off the record and met in a hallway to discuss the officer’s
corrective action further. During that hallway conversation, Altaheri agreed to a lesser penalty in
exchange for the officer deleting the reckless driving video. Altaheri then came back on the
record and changed the resignation in lieu of termination (as previously negotiated) to a 30-day
suspension. Because the evidence demonstrated that Altaheri’s decision to reduce the severity of
the discipline was influenced by his desire for the officer to destroy compromising evidence
against him, Altaheri’s conduct violated HPD’s rules and regulations.

Handing a loaded gun to a civilian and instructing her to put it to someone’s head. The
evidence also substantiated the allegation that Altaheri handed a loaded gun to a civilian
volunteer and told her to put it to someone’s head. A recording of that incident was previously
released publicly and is the subject of local news articles. An officer who witnessed the event—
and who quickly took the gun away from the volunteer—confirmed that the recording was
accurate and that Altaheri handed the gun to the civilian volunteer. During the investigation,
Altaheri largely confirmed the facts but claimed that it was a joke. Whether or not Altaheri was
“joking,” as he has claimed, the evidence shows that he created a serious danger in handing a
loaded firearm to an untrained civilian volunteer in a crowded room. Further, Altaheri’s
contention that the firearm was unloaded is implausible given the available evidence, and even
handing an unloaded gun to the civilian in that setting would violate HPD policies.

Pressuring officers to help him in a custody dispute. At least five 911 calls prompted
HPD officers to respond to the residence that Altaheri shared with the mother of his two-year-old
son. There is evidence reflecting that in one instance, Altaheri suggested that officers conduct an
investigation at the residence in a way that would be favorable to his position in a dispute over
custody of his son. On September 19, 2024 (the same night as the driving incident described
above), officers responded to the house following a 911 hang-up call on which Altaheri and the
woman can be heard arguing. Altaheri then apparently left the residence and arrived back at the
house, giving the appearance that he was not at home when the 911 call was placed. The police
observed that the woman’s foot was injured, and the officers treated the call like a medical
incident. Altaheri, however, told the officers to investigate her for drug use, conveying to three
of them that he was hoping to use what they found (and any resulting police report) to gain
custody of his son. Two of the four officers thought that she might be intoxicated, but none of
them believed there was a basis to investigate her for drug activity. Altaheri then told one of the

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 5|Page

officers to write the police report in a way that would be as vague as possible while helping him
build his custody case. The police report described the woman’s eyes as “glossy, bloodshot, and .
. . not to react to light,” while omitting any mention of Altaheri’s presence during the incident. In
using his inherent power as Police Chief for personal benefit in this fashion, Altaheri violated
HPD’s rules and regulations.

Violating policies and procedures regarding stolen property. The investigation

substantiated that Altaheri participated in the recovery of a vehicle that had been reported as
stolen without following standard police practices and procedures. The vehicle, an expensive
Mercedes Benz, was in the possession of one of Altaheri’s acquaintances. Altaheri persuaded the
acquaintance to turn over the car voluntarily to one of Altaheri’s longtime friends from New
York. Adamczyk and two civilians—one a convicted felon—participated in the effort to recover
the car and transport it to New York. Although there were differing accounts as to whose idea
this escapade was, with Altaheri and Adamczyk pointing fingers at each other, it is undisputed
that both of them participated in the conduct and failed to follow basic police procedures
governing the recovery of a stolen car.

Violating other policies and procedures. The evidence obtained during the investigation
also revealed that Altaheri gave Adamczyk unfettered access to his electronic signature and to at
least one of his City-issued email accounts in violation of HPD policies. Altaheri’s conduct
during two meetings in May 2025, one of which was recorded, also included physical and verbal
threats that violated HPD’s rules and regulations.

Unsubstantiated allegations. The investigation did not confirm or dispel the allegation
that Altaheri committed domestic violence and did not substantiate the allegation that he misused
his authority as Police Chief to cover up acts of domestic violence. The investigation also did not
uncover evidence that Altaheri improperly solicited money from a local towing company
operator. And although the investigation established that at least two City ID cards were created
for Mark Zarkin for some unknown reason, that conduct does not appear to have violated any
existing policies or procedures, or employment expectations.

B. Officer David Adamczyk

The investigation likewise substantiated some of the allegations against Officer David
Adamczyk.

Recording other officers. Adamczyk’s recordings were not per se illegal or a violation of
HPD’s rules and regulations. But because Adamczyk made some of those recordings as part of a
broader plan to exert leverage over Altaheri and other officers, his conduct violated HPD’s rules
and regulations and City policies in other ways. Further, when asked during his interview about
the extent of his recordings, Adamczyk lied about them—as evidenced by the additional
recordings recovered from his City-issued phone, which is an independent basis for issuing
corrective action against him.

Attempting to manipulate the sergeant’s examination and then leaking other allegations
to pressure Altaheri. The evidence showed that, with Altaheri’s assistance, Adamczyk attempted
to rig a sergeant’s promotion examination in his favor. When Adamczyk learned that he still

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 6|Page

finished second, after seniority points, he compiled and released the list of allegations against
Altaheri that eventually precipitated this investigation. The timing of Adamczyk’s actions, the
content of contemporaneous recordings that he made, and Adamczyk’s subsequent leaking of
those allegations to other HPD officers strongly support the inference that Adamczyk was
seeking to pressure Altaheri into promoting him. In using his allegations here as leverage for
personal benefit, Adamczyk violated HPD’s rules and regulations.

Violating policies and procedures regarding stolen property. As discussed above,

Adamczyk participated in the improper recovery of a stolen car. In failing to write a report, use
his body camera, or record the recovery of the vehicle through official law enforcement
channels, Adamczyk violated myriad policies. Although he later claimed he did so at the express
direction of Altaheri, Altaheri did not have the authority to order him to conduct law
enforcement activity outside Hamtramck, and even if he did, based on Adamczyk’s version of
the events, any such order would have been illegal and Adamczyk should not have followed it.

Committing overtime abuse. The investigation uncovered evidence that Adamczyk

submitted overtime for hours that he did not actually work or mischaracterized the nature of his
overtime. The investigation of this allegation was limited by the lack of documentation for
Adamczyk’s work and by the fact that Altaheri permitted Adamczyk to sign his own overtime
slips using Altaheri’s electronic signature. But GPS location data from Adamczyk’s City-issued
phone shows that, on at least two occasions, Adamczyk was at his home during the hours when
he claimed overtime for a special assignment with the Detroit Police Department’s Commercial
Auto Theft Section (CATS). He also claimed overtime for three other instances when he claimed
to be working for a different special assignment, this time with the Wayne County Sheriff’s
Office, even though Wayne County officials have since confirmed that he did virtually no work
for them.

Unsubstantiated allegations. The remaining allegations against Adamczyk were not

substantiated.

C. City Manager Max Garbarino

The investigation largely did not substantiate the initial allegations against City Manager
Max Garbarino, but it identified that Garbarino exercised significant poor judgment in his role as
City Manager and other instances in which his actions did not comport with his obligations under
the Hamtramck City Charter, City policies, or supervisory expectations for his position.

Garbarino’s prior separation agreement with the City. Garbarino did not breach or
improperly conceal his prior separation agreement with the City when he returned to City
employment in late 2019 as the Director of Community Safety and Services. Garbarino’s prior
separation agreement was well known and openly discussed at the City Council meeting when
his rehiring and new employment agreement were approved. As the then-City Attorney
explained at the time, the City was permitted to modify Garbarino’s prior separation agreement
with his new employment agreement. And the new employment agreement, by its own terms,
superseded that previous separation agreement.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 7|Page

 Garbarino’s attendance at the City Council meeting on June 10, 2025. The investigation
did not substantiate the allegations that Garbarino’s conduct in attending the City Council
meeting on June 10, 2025, violated any laws or policies. It was a public meeting, and the terms
of Garbarino’s administrative leave did not prohibit his attendance or interactions at that
meeting. But we question whether Garbarino exercised good judgment in attending that meeting,
while armed with his concealed pistol, so soon after being put on administrative leave.

Rehiring of David Adamczyk. On multiple occasions, Garbarino asked both the former
Police Chief and Altaheri to consider rehiring Adamczyk as an HPD officer. The investigation
revealed that Adamczyk left HPD employment in 2002 under a cloud, and Garbarino too quickly
ignored other officers’ concerns about rehiring him. Garbarino also did not conduct any
investigation into the circumstances of Adamczyk’s previous departure from HPD, other than
just accepting Adamczyk’s characterization of what had happened. During his interview with
Miller Johnson, Garbarino downplayed his own responsibility for Adamczyk’s rehiring,
repeatedly stating that he made only an “introduction” of Adamczyk to Altaheri and left the
ultimate hiring decision to Altaheri. Garbarino’s account understates the impact and pressure that
a supervisor’s “introduction” would have on a relatively new subordinate, which Altaheri was at
the time. Garbarino’s characterization also minimizes the unique personal relationship that
Adamczyk and Garbarino enjoyed, with Adamczyk previously providing Garbarino employment
after Garbarino’s prior separation from the City, and Garbarino already trying unsuccessfully to
get Adamczyk rehired by the former Police Chief. Given this circumstantial evidence, a
reasonable decisionmaker could find that Garbarino was motivated to get Adamczyk rehired due
to their personal relationship and was not simply making introductions.

Delays in addressing allegations of misconduct. The information obtained during the

investigation, including many of the allegations noted above, supported Garbarino’s decision to
place Altaheri and Adamczyk on administrative leave on May 21, 2025. If anything, Garbarino
should have suspended them even earlier, given the seriousness of the allegations and when he
was made aware of them. Garbarino, for instance, appears to have learned several months earlier
that Altaheri was recklessly driving his City-provided vehicle after consuming alcohol and that
Altaheri reduced the severity of discipline imposed for an officer’s timecard fraud at least in part
to ensure that the officer would destroy a compromising video of him. Garbarino also knew that
those instances by the Police Chief were well-known within the police department, which
negatively impacted the workforce. Garbarino suggested to Miller Johnson that he did not have
enough evidence to act, but given his responsibilities as City Manager, it seems more likely that
he failed to act earlier for personal reasons, namely out of fear that intervening might jeopardize
his own job. Garbarino’s delays in taking action were inconsistent with his obligations under the
Hamtramck City Charter, City policies, and supervisory expectations for his position.

Other miscellaneous allegations of misconduct. The investigation did not substantiate the
other allegations levied against Garbarino, including the allegations in the written memorandum
that was released publicly and then subsequently passed along to Miller Johnson.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 8|Page

II. Investigation Scope and Procedure

The City of Hamtramck retained Miller Johnson in early June 2025 to conduct an
independent, objective, and comprehensive investigation and provide legal advice to the City
regarding allegations of misconduct against Police Chief Jamiel Altaheri, Officer David
Adamczyk, and City Manager Max Garbarino.

By way of background, Garbarino placed Altaheri and Adamczyk on paid administrative

leave on May 21, 2025, approximately a month after learning of allegations that Altaheri and
Adamczyk had engaged in significant misconduct. Less than a week later, on May 27, 2025, the
City Council placed Garbarino on paid administrative leave, expressing concerns about the
process by which Garbarino had acted and raising allegations that Garbarino had engaged in
misconduct. The City then retained Miller Johnson to investigate the allegations against all three
men and provide legal advice to the City regarding what was uncovered.

Because the allegations against Altaheri, Adamczyk, and Garbarino were wide-ranging
and unbounded, the engagement letter between the City and Miller Johnson included a high-level
summary of the anticipated scope of Miller Johnson’s representation in this matter. Following a
subsequent conversation with the Mayor and the City Attorney, Miller Johnson endeavored to
provide additional specificity on that scope. As confirmed via letter dated June 24, 2025, that
scope included an investigation and legal advice concerning the allegations addressed in this
report.

Miller Johnson’s investigation and legal advice regarding these allegations was limited in
some ways. Most notably, it did not include a determination of any potential criminal liability,
except as relevant to whether any allegations of criminal conduct were sufficiently credible to
warrant administrative actions undertaken based on civil administrative rules and regulations or
other applicable laws or procedures.

Even with those limitations, however, the breadth of the allegations required a
correspondingly broad investigation. Miller Johnson began by reviewing emails and documents
identified and provided by the City as potentially relevant. Miller Johnson then requested a
broader set of documents and electronic information, some of which the City was able to provide
within a few weeks and some of which created technological challenges for the City and required
coordinating and working with an e-discovery vendor. Ultimately, to ensure that Miller Johnson
collected a comprehensive set of the necessary information, the investigative team traveled
onsite to Hamtramck City Hall on July 8, 2025, to perform a forensic collection. While there,
Miller Johnson also collected and copied documents available only in paper form. Miller
Johnson later obtained additional electronic media from the City for imaging and review. The
amount of information obtained from the City was significant, comprising approximately several
million individual items that then needed to be processed and reviewed using targeted, issue-
specific searches.

Having obtained that information, Miller Johnson then began identifying and reviewing
electronic information and documents pertinent to the allegations. Over 670,000 documents were
uploaded to a review platform so that targeted searches could be performed. Miller Johnson also
reviewed forensic extractions of both Adamczyk’s and Garbarino’s City-issued phones. That

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 9|Page

review process assisted in identifying witnesses with relevant information and informing Miller
Johnson on the most appropriate topics to cover with those witnesses. That review process also
uncovered evidence relevant to evaluating witness credibility and determining whether
allegations had been partially or wholly substantiated.

In parallel with that review, Miller Johnson interviewed witnesses with knowledge of the
facts and circumstances related to the allegations. Given the breadth of the allegations, many of
those witness interviews required lengthy conversations, sometimes lasting two or even three
hours. In total, Miller Johnson interviewed approximately 40 witnesses, including HPD officers,
City employees, law enforcement personnel, and other persons identified as having information
relevant to the investigation. Many of the HPD and City employees were compelled to
participate as a condition of continued employment and faced potentially adverse employment
actions if they provided false information. Most of those witnesses agreed to be interviewed only
after being provided Garrity protection for their statements. This report thus contains Garrity-
protected information that prevents or limits its use in any future criminal investigation or
proceeding and that protects the report and underlying information from disclosure under MCL
15.393 and 15.395.

Near the investigation’s conclusion, Miller Johnson separately interviewed Altaheri,

Adamczyk, and Garbarino. Each of those interviews lasted a full day. Those interviews were
conducted only after most of the other witness interviews had concluded, so that Altaheri,
Adamczyk, and Garbarino had the opportunity to hear and address the universe of allegations
against them in one sitting.

This report follows the completion of the investigation and summarizes Miller Johnson’s
factual findings and legal advice to the City. To address concerns about retaliation and other
concerns expressed during the investigation, where feasible, witnesses’ names have been
anonymized in this report.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 10 | P a g e

III. Findings and Analysis

A. Policies, Procedures, and Other Authorities Governing the City’s

Employment Relationship with Altaheri, Adamczyk, and Garbarino

Altaheri, Adamczyk, and Garbarino are all employed in different positions, which require
unique employment responsibilities to the City, the Hamtramck community, and the workforce.
Nonetheless, all parties are subject to the City’s policies and procedures, including those
contained in the City’s employment handbook. Altaheri and Adamczyk are additionally subject
to HPD’s rules and regulations. Of note, Adamczyk’s employment is also governed by the
current collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with the HPD union, and Garbarino has
heightened employment responsibilities in his role as City Manager under the Hamtramck City
Charter.

B. General Background

David Adamczyk previously worked as a Hamtramck police officer from 1998 to 2002.
He left HPD employment following an incident involving the use of force against a detainee,
amid conflicting allegations between Adamczyk and other officers about what had happened
during and after that incident. Adamczyk then became a private investigator.

Max Garbarino joined HPD as a police officer in 2001, briefly overlapping with
Adamczyk. Over the next decade, Garbarino ascended through the HPD ranks and became the
Police Chief in 2011. His employment as Police Chief ended in March 2015, following an
internal investigation that culminated in a signed separation agreement between Garbarino and
the City. After his City employment ended, Garbarino reached out to Adamczyk, who offered
Garbarino a job working for his private investigation firm. Garbarino worked for Adamczyk’s
firm for less than a year while building his own business, American Court Services. After
leaving Adamczyk’s firm, Garbarino stayed in contact with Adamczyk and maintained a referral
relationship with him.

In late 2019, the City of Hamtramck rehired Garbarino as the Director of Community
Safety and Services. As part of that rehiring decision, the City negotiated a new employment
agreement with Garbarino. The City Council approved that new employment agreement and
approved the decision to rehire Garbarino during its meeting on November 26, 2019. Garbarino
later became the Acting City Manager and then, ultimately, the City Manager.

After he was rehired, Garbarino tried unsuccessfully to convince then-Police Chief Anne
Moise to rehire Adamczyk as a police officer. Moise consulted other HPD officers, who
expressed concerns about Adamczyk’s reputation stemming from his previous stint as a police
officer. Moise declined to rehire Adamczyk. By Garbarino’s account, he had multiple
discussions with Moise about rehiring Adamczyk but ultimately dropped the matter when she
declined to rehire him. By Adamczyk’s account, Adamczyk withdrew from the hiring process
following his interview with Moise because he disagreed with the direction of HPD under her
leadership. More details on this topic are provided below.

Altaheri was sworn in as the Police Chief on May 12, 2024. Initially, and throughout
most of the past year, Altaheri and Garbarino appear to have maintained a relatively productive

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 11 | P a g e

and respectful working relationship. At some point during the summer of 2024, Garbarino
convinced Altaheri to meet with and interview Adamczyk. Altaheri met with Adamczyk and
rehired him, in part because Altaheri viewed it as a favor to his new supervisor, Garbarino. When
other officers expressed concerns about rehiring Adamczyk, Garbarino dismissed those concerns,
believing that Adamczyk had been treated unfairly during his previous stint with HPD. Altaheri
likewise dismissed officers’ concerns about Adamczyk, stating that he had reviewed the
circumstances surrounding Adamczyk’s previous departure from HPD and was satisfied with
what he had learned.

Almost immediately after Adamczyk was hired, Altaheri and Adamczyk became
inseparable. Departing from established protocols for new or returning officers, Altaheri agreed
to eliminate Adamczyk’s remaining field-training requirements (commonly referred to as “FTO
status”) and purported to remove Adamczyk from his one-year probationary period. Altaheri
then made Adamczyk his de facto second-in-command, often requiring other officers to go
through Adamczyk to reach him and relaying important information to other officers or City
officials through Adamczyk. Altaheri gave Adamczyk access to at least one of his email
accounts with the City, enabling Adamczyk to send and receive emails on Altaheri’s behalf. In
addition, Altaheri gave Adamczyk his electronic signature, so that Adamczyk could sign
documents on Altaheri’s behalf. On at least one occasion, Altaheri told another officer to obtain
that electronic signature from Adamczyk.

Altaheri also allowed Adamczyk to draft the position description for a special assignment
as an investigator on detail with the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office. Adamczyk drafted that
position description using criteria that mirrored his own private-sector resume, ensuring that only
Adamczyk—and no other HPD officers—qualified for the assignment. Altaheri later appointed
Adamczyk to a second special assignment, this time with the CATS team investigating stolen
automobiles. Adamczyk was also permitted to purchase a $59,000 detective car for himself,
without going through the normal HPD bid process or vendor. In addition, as explained in more
detail below, Adamczyk was permitted to submit overtime hours with no oversight or second-
guessing, often using Altaheri’s electronic signature to approve his own hours. And as explained
below, Altaheri permitted Adamczyk to assist in crafting the format and topics for a sergeant’s
examination, even though Adamczyk was taking that examination and competing with other
officers for that promotion.

Altaheri developed several other close confidantes too. But he was closest with
Adamczyk, who also maintained his close relationship with Garbarino. Many other officers kept
their distance from Adamczyk and did not trust him, though, either because of Adamczyk’s
reputation from his previous stint with HPD or because of what those officers observed after
Adamczyk was rehired.

Eventually, in the spring of 2025, a rift developed between Adamczyk and Altaheri.
Many of the allegations detailed below, including many of the most serious ones, came to light
during or after that rift.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 12 | P a g e

 C. Allegations Against Police Chief Jamiel Altaheri

The investigation substantiated some of the allegations against Altaheri, while failing to
substantiate others.

1. Wiping his cell phone and obstructing the internal investigation

As an initial matter, Altaheri violated HPD’s rules and regulations by intentionally

destroying or attempting to destroy evidence relevant to the internal investigation. Altaheri was
placed on administrative leave during a meeting in Garbarino’s office on May 21, 2025. During
that meeting, Garbarino ordered Altaheri to turn in his City-issued gun, badge, and phone.

Altaheri was then escorted to his office by two command staff officers. When they
reached Altaheri’s office, an evidence technician who was friends with Altaheri was nearby.
When one of the escorting officers stepped out of Altaheri’s office briefly to speak with
Altaheri’s assistant, Altaheri handed his City-issued phone to the evidence technician and said,
“wipe this for me.” The technician did what Altaheri instructed and initiated a full factory reset
on Altaheri’s City-issued phone, erasing all of the data on it. Altaheri attempted to justify his
request by stating that he had “personal stuff” on the phone. The next day, the FBI came to the
police station and seized Altaheri’s phone and hard drive.

When asked about the incident during his interview, Altaheri acknowledged telling the
technician to “erase” the “data” on his phone—and that the evidence technician performed a
factory reset of the phone at his request—but claimed that he made the request because he had
private photos on the phone. Based on the evidence and circumstances surrounding his directive
to erase all the data on the phone, that excuse is not credible. Moreover, whether or not Altaheri
had personal photos on his City-issued phone, Altaheri had no right or justification to erase all of
the data from it, only a few minutes after being placed on administrative leave pending an
internal investigation.

In addition to wiping his own phone, Altaheri instructed another officer to wipe
Adamczyk’s phone. Like Altaheri, Adamczyk had been placed on administrative leave on May
21, 2025, pending the investigation. But unlike the evidence technician, the other officer
recognized the impropriety of Altaheri’s request and did not wipe Adamczyk’s phone. He instead
put the phone in a Faraday bag. That phone was turned over to the FBI and then subsequently
returned to the City.

At the very least, Altaheri knew when he wiped his phone that he had just been placed on
administrative leave pending an internal investigation into his conduct. Thus, even standing
alone, Altaheri’s destruction of evidence and obstruction of the internal investigation violated
multiple HPD rules and regulations, including HPD Rules 2.11(A), 2.11(B), 2.11(R), and
2.11(HH). A decisionmaker could also reasonably conclude that destroying evidence by wiping
his phone reflects consciousness of guilt that the pending investigation would uncover
unfavorable evidence regarding his conduct.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 13 | P a g e

 2. Operating a City-issued vehicle after consuming alcohol and related
violations of HPD’s rules and regulations

The investigation substantiated allegations that Altaheri drove his City-issued HPD truck
after consuming alcohol. Altaheri also committed other serious violations of HPD’s rules and
regulations in connection with one of those incidents.

a. Altaheri’s reckless driving to and from the Coliseum, after

consuming alcohol, and his subsequent cover-up

One of the most detailed examples of Altaheri’s violations concerned his reckless driving
in his City-issued truck to and from a strip club, after consuming alcohol, with other officers
riding with him. Altaheri then ordered the destruction of a video that had captured his
misconduct and agreed not to terminate an officer who had committed timecard fraud at least
partly in exchange for the officer’s agreement to delete the video.

i. Reckless driving in his City-issued vehicle after

consuming alcohol

On September 19, 2024, Altaheri hosted an officer-appreciation party at Post 6, a bar in

Hamtramck located a few blocks from the police station. The party began at approximately 4:00
or 5:00 in the afternoon, although Altaheri did not arrive until later because he had met other
officers at his house while they were responding to a 911 hang-up call there. That call is
discussed in more detail below.

When Altaheri arrived at Post 6, he began drinking. Several attendees confirmed that
Altaheri drank heavily and appeared to be intoxicated. Two attendees noted that Altaheri started
ordering rounds of shots for himself and other officers. According to one of the attendees,
Altaheri drank at least five or six rounds of “pickleback” shots—a shot of Jameson whiskey
followed by a shot of pickle juice—and might have consumed additional alcohol too.

When the party ended, Altaheri and some of the other officers drove back to the police
station. While there, Altaheri and four other officers decided to go to the Coliseum, a strip club
on Eight Mile Road in Detroit. Altaheri drove his City-issued truck. One officer sat in the back
of that truck; another officer rode in the front passenger seat. A sergeant, who had been working
at the police station during the party and had not been drinking, agreed to drive in a separate car
with another officer.

The four officers varied on whether Altaheri appeared intoxicated when he first got
behind the wheel to drive to the strip club. One of the officers, who had not attended the Post 6
party other than to grab a bite for dinner, was not initially concerned about Altaheri being
intoxicated. Another officer was concerned about Altaheri’s drinking but noted that he did not
seem “wasted” before he began driving to the Coliseum. The other two officers were both
concerned that Altaheri was intoxicated. One of those officers described Altaheri as having the
“classic bloodshot, red eyes” of someone who had been drinking and explained that Altaheri was
sweating and smelled of alcohol. Neither of those officers attempted to intervene, however, and
at no point did Altaheri request or seek other arrangements for driving the group to the Coliseum.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 14 | P a g e

 As Altaheri drove to the Coliseum, he started swerving across lanes. He also began
running red lights, activating his police lights on his City-issued truck to do so. Altaheri ran at
least three or four red lights during the trip to the strip club.

When they reached the Coliseum, all the officers went inside. They stayed at the strip
club for about an hour and ordered another round of drinks there. Then, they left the Coliseum
and headed back to the police station.

The ride back resembled the ride there. As before, Altaheri drove in front, with the
sergeant and the other officer driving in the car behind him. And as before, Altaheri continued
swerving and running red lights using the police lights on his City-issued truck. Eventually,
shortly after midnight, the officers returned to the police station.

In their accounts of what happened, all of the other officers who went to the Coliseum
with Altaheri confirmed that he was driving recklessly and appeared to be driving while
intoxicated. Their accounts varied on immaterial points, such as on how many red lights Altaheri
ran and on whether Altaheri’s reckless driving occurred primarily on the way to the strip club or
on the way back—or both. Several of the officers explained that they had concerns about either
their own safety or others’ safety, including the safety of other drivers on the road, given
Altaheri’s reckless driving and apparent intoxication. At least one of the officers explained that if
he had observed any other driver acting as Altaheri did, he would have pulled that person over on
suspicion of driving while intoxicated.

At some point during the drive to or from the Coliseum, one of the officers in the car
behind Altaheri recorded videos of Altaheri’s driving. Miller Johnson obtained and reviewed
those videos, along with text messages showing that the videos were forwarded to the other
officer the next day. The first video shows Altaheri running a red light, turning on his police
lights mid-intersection to justify it, and then turning off his police lights once he finished running
the red light:

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 15 | P a g e

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 16 | P a g e
 The second video is a short clip that shows Altaheri’s truck straddling two lanes, without
a turn signal or any other suggestion that he was changing lanes:

Although the second video is less concerning on its face and could perhaps be explained
away in isolation, both videos corroborate the officers’ accounts of what happened that night.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 17 | P a g e

 Regardless of whether Altaheri exposed himself to potential criminal liability for driving
while intoxicated or recklessly, his conduct that night violated HPD’s rules and regulations. In
particular, even assuming he was off duty, and regardless of whether his blood-alcohol content
exceeded the legal limit, by his own admission Altaheri had consumed at least some alcohol—a
Jack and Coke—before operating a City-assigned vehicle. Altaheri violated HPD Rule 2.11(N)
by operating a City-assigned vehicle after having consumed alcoholic beverages. His reckless
driving, misuse of police lights, and running red lights also violated HPD Rules 2.11(C),
2.11(KK) and 11.2, as well as the incorporated provisions of Michigan law, such as MCL
257.603.

In addition, Altaheri was not candid when asked about several aspects of these incidents
during his interview with Miller Johnson, making assertions that were easily disprovable based
on the available evidence. In doing so, Altaheri violated HPD Rule 2.11(MM)’s requirements
regarding “truthfulness.” Altaheri admitted, for instance, that he consumed a Jack and Coke at
the Post 6 but claimed that he did not consume any other alcohol at either Post 6 or the Coliseum.
The other witnesses’ accounts overwhelmingly belied those claims. Altaheri also stated that he
did not know—and still does not believe—that the Coliseum was a strip club, because he did not
see any girls dancing there. A photograph from that evening contradicts Altaheri’s claim.

Altaheri was similarly not credible in claiming during his interview that if he drove
through red lights with his police lights on, he had a legitimate reason for doing so, such as
possibly responding to a call. The video evidence contradicts Altaheri account. The video shows
no reason for Altaheri’s decision to activate his police lights, other than using them to finish
running a red light that he was already in the process of running. In particular, the video shows
that Altaheri turned off his police lights almost immediately after he finished running the red
light, after turning them on only briefly, rebutting Altaheri’s contention that he was acting in
response to an ongoing call.

ii. Altaheri’s requested destruction of the video during the

investigation and discipline of an officer for timecard
fraud

Making matters worse, Altaheri committed additional violations in attempting to cover up

what had happened. In the weeks following Altaheri’s trip to the Coliseum, rumors of the
incident spread quickly among HPD officers. Eventually, in early November 2024, Altaheri
learned from another officer that there was a video of Altaheri’s driving that night.

Altaheri immediately confronted the officer who had the video and demanded that he
delete it. The officer agreed to do so. Security footage—described by a witness who reviewed the
footage near the time of that incident—corroborated this evidence. Text messages from the
officer who was confronted, sent immediately after the event and obtained by Miller Johnson,
further confirm the substance of that confrontation:

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 18 | P a g e

 Despite Altaheri’s demand, the officer did not delete the videos of Altaheri’s driving. He
kept them on his phone.

The video reared its head again in early January 2025, when the officer who had the
videos came under investigation for timecard fraud. Altaheri instructed a sergeant who oversaw
HPD’s newly created internal affairs function to investigate the officer’s timecard and overtime
submissions. He also asked Adamczyk to assist in the investigation, given Adamczyk’s
purported experience in fraud investigations.

On January 13, 2025, the officer under investigation sent a text to a union representative
conveying his anger with the situation and threatening to release one of the videos. Those text
messages, obtained by Miller Johnson, include the following four messages in sequence:

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 19 | P a g e

 The next day, the officer was placed on administrative leave, pending the outcome of the
investigation. The investigation confirmed that the officer had engaged in timecard fraud. In his
initial write-up, dated January 15, 2025, the sergeant conducting the investigation documented
what he had found and ended with a planned “departmental action” that the officer be
“discharge[d].”

Either Altaheri or Adamczyk, using the “policechief” email account (to which Adamczyk
had full access), contacted Garbarino around noon on January 16, 2025, stating that Altaheri had
“decided to officially proceed with terminating [the officer].” The email stated that “[t]he
charges are serious and there will be no negotiations to lessen any charges” and that “this will
serve as an example for other members that overtime abuse and any other types of fraud and
criminal behavior will not be tolerated.” Garbarino agreed with the proposed course of action but
reminded Altaheri that the officer needed to have an opportunity to defend his actions. Altaheri
(or Adamczyk) agreed with Garbarino on that point and stated that Altaheri planned to deliver
the write-up to the officer’s union representatives and schedule a meeting with them.

Altaheri and the investigating sergeant met with the officer’s union representatives. The
union representatives negotiated a resolution by which the officer could resign in lieu of
termination, and Adamczyk memorialized that resolution in an email and accompanying
agreement that he sent to the union representatives on the evening of Friday, January 17, 2025.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 20 | P a g e

 Meanwhile, Altaheri learned that the officer under investigation was threatening to
release the video of his driving. In response, Altaheri denied to various people that he had been
drunk the night of the incident captured on video; threatened to report the sergeant who had been
driving that night to the Michigan State Police for not reporting him (Altaheri); and screamed at
one of the union representatives with a profanity-laden missive, along the lines of, “who the fuck
do you think you are, motherfucker?”

A series of three-way calls with the union representatives and Adamczyk tried to smooth
things over. Adamczyk said something to the effect of “you gotta reel your guy in.” After some
additional back-and-forth over the next few hours, the officer under investigation told one of the
union representatives that he had decided to resign and not release the video. Adamczyk had also
agreed to talk to Altaheri about his threat to report the sergeant to the Michigan State Police, and
Altaheri eventually retracted his threat. But Altaheri remained upset about the threat by the
officer under investigation to release the video, and he conveyed as much to the internal affairs
sergeant.

On Sunday morning, January 19, 2025, Altaheri convened the officer’s disciplinary
hearing. The expectation going into the hearing was that the officer would resign in lieu of
termination. In addition to the officer, Altaheri, Adamczyk, one of the union representatives, and
the internal affairs sergeant were at the hearing. The hearing was recorded, and Miller Johnson
has obtained a copy of the recording.

During the hearing, the officer became upset, and the union representative advocated for
leniency. There was no mention of the video of Altaheri’s driving. The initial discussion
concluded shortly after 9:30 a.m., after which Altaheri took a break to deliberate and decide on
the appropriate discipline.

The same group reconvened approximately a half-hour later. This part of the hearing was
also recorded, and Miller Johnson has obtained a copy of that recording too. Having deliberated,
Altaheri stated that the officer would have the opportunity to resign in lieu of termination,
suggesting that if the officer chose not to resign, he would be fired because of the fraudulent time
submissions. Altaheri then presented the officer with a resignation form. At this point, the union
representative asked for a second to talk with the officer, and the meeting went off the record.

With the recording stopped, the union representative went over the resignation form with
the officer, but the officer refused to sign it. The union representative then asked to step outside
and talk with Altaheri in the hallway, where the internal affairs sergeant and Adamczyk soon
joined them. Once there, the union representative reiterated his argument for keeping the officer
in HPD, telling Altaheri that he had worked with the officer, that the officer had saved his life on
multiple occasions, and that the officer had been experiencing significant mental distress
recently. In response, according to two of the witnesses in the hallway, Altaheri stated that the
officer needed to get rid of the video. Altaheri then agreed to a last-chance agreement and 30-day
suspension for the officer in lieu of resignation or termination.

The group then went back on the record. This conversation was also recorded and
obtained by Miller Johnson. This time, Altaheri changed his focus, emphasizing the officer’s
service as a police officer. He stated that, “after negotiations,” they had reached a last-chance

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 21 | P a g e

agreement with the officer. The internal affairs sergeant then read the amended agreement aloud.
It required a 30-day unpaid suspension and required the officer to repay HPD for the amounts
that he had fraudulently obtained. After some minor changes, the officer signed the amended
agreement.

Included in HPD’s emails and files were the different iterations of the timecard fraud
investigation report. The Monday after Altaheri agreed not to terminate the officer, the internal
affairs sergeant asked the City’s Human Resources Director to shred the previous version of his
report that had contemplated termination. Miller Johnson was nonetheless able to obtain that
previous version, as well as the final signed version that did not require the officer’s resignation
or termination. That same Monday, the internal affairs sergeant emailed the entire Hamtramck
Police Department that, “[a]t this time, [the officer] will be returning to full duty patrol on or
after February 18th, 2025.”

The weight of this evidence substantiates the allegation that Altaheri refrained from
terminating the officer because Altaheri was concerned about the officer releasing the video of
his driving and wanted the officer to destroy that evidence. The evidence showed that Altaheri
had tirades about the video during the officer’s investigation—on at least three different phone
calls with three different officers. This establishes that Altaheri was angry and concerned about
the video’s existence. And although the officers’ perspectives varied, the overwhelming
consensus was that Altaheri’s desire for the video to be destroyed influenced his decision to
reduce the officer’s discipline. The most credible accounts described the officer’s willingness to
get rid of the video as a “large” or primary factor in Altaheri’s decision. Even the officer who
viewed Altaheri’s conduct in the most favorable light acknowledged that changing the discipline
decision was a “two-fer” for Altaheri, because he got to look like the good guy while also
keeping the video concealed.

The recordings of the disciplinary hearing likewise showed Altaheri’s motives, because
Altaheri abruptly changed the discipline decision midstream, after an off-the-record conversation
that other officers later described to Miller Johnson in detail. Altaheri’s comment during that off-
the-record conversation demonstrated that the video was still front of mind for him, and the
abrupt change in his decision, immediately following that comment, demonstrated that the video
was a motivating factor in that decision. The officer’s timecard fraud, moreover, presented a
serious integrity and credibility issue that would ordinarily have warranted and resulted in
termination—as several HPD officers noted when asked about this incident.

In changing the officer’s discipline decision in that way, and in using that changed
discipline decision as leverage to conceal or destroy evidence of Altaheri’s own prior
misconduct, Altaheri violated HPD Rule 2.11(R), which proscribes any “abuse[s] of position”
and prohibits an officer from using his “official position” for “personal or financial gain” or
“avoiding consequences of illegal acts.” For similar reasons, Altaheri violated the ethics rules in
the Hamtramck City Code, which prohibit any “public servant” from “knowingly us[ing] his or
her office or position to secure personal benefit . . . or us[ing] his or her position to secure special
privileges or exceptions for himself.” Hamtramck City Code 39.005(G). He also violated both
HPD Rule 2.11(A) and HPD Rule 2.11(B) for unbecoming and immoral conduct, respectively.
And his conduct toward the other officers violated HPD’s prohibitions against threats and
intimidation in HPD Rule 2.124.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 22 | P a g e

 Some of Altaheri’s statements to the other officers were especially concerning because he
threatened at least one of them with criminal prosecution if that officer reported Altaheri’s own
misconduct belatedly. Altaheri repeated a similar mantra during his interview with Miller
Johnson, suggesting that the other officers should be disciplined, or perhaps even prosecuted, if
they knew that he was driving while intoxicated and did not report him. Altaheri also suggested
that the other officers would be at fault for not stepping in and preventing him from driving
while intoxicated. Coming from Altaheri—a supervisor engaged in alleged misconduct—those
statements were highly inappropriate and appear to have been designed to deter other officers
from reporting what they observed.

b. Altaheri’s conduct during HPD’s response to a double

shooting.

Although a closer call, evidence also suggests that Altaheri drove his City-issued truck
after consuming alcohol—and then blew out his tire—during HPD’s response to a double
shooting on the evening of Monday, April 28, 2025. That double shooting had left two teenagers
critically injured. Given the seriousness of what had happened and the need to search for the
shooter, who was still at large, HPD called in many of its fulltime and reserve officers to assist
with the response.

Altaheri arrived on the scene quickly in his City-issued truck. A call soon went out that
the shooting suspect had been sighted nearby. Altaheri jumped into his car, accompanied by
another officer, to begin looking for the suspect. That search was short-lived: after a few
minutes, they found the person who had been sighted nearby and confirmed that the person was
not actually the suspect. The officer who rode with Altaheri had no concerns that Altaheri was
intoxicated. Altaheri and the other officer then returned to the shooting scene. Altaheri soon left
again, however, for a preplanned meeting with some community members.

At approximately 10:00 p.m., Altaheri called an officer who was at the scene. Altaheri
told the officer that he was stuck in the parking lot at Remas Restaurant with a flat tire. The
officer then called two reserve officers, who had been searching for the shooter, and told them to
assist Altaheri.

When the reserve officers arrived at Remas, they found Altaheri in his City-issued truck
with two other men. All three men were unharmed, and Altaheri’s companions left quickly after
the reserve officers arrived. According to both reserve officers, Altaheri seemed off. One of the
reserve officers noticed that Altaheri’s eyes appeared glassy. The other reserve officer described
Altaheri as unusually “giddy and bouncy,” “like a kid with too much candy on Halloween” who
had a “sugar overload.”

Altaheri asked the reserve officers to help him change his tire. When they asked Altaheri
what had happened, Altaheri stated that someone had put a glass bottle under his wheel. The
reserve officers did not believe that explanation, because the tire was “completely blown off the
rim” and the rim was damaged. It was “not a normal flat tire,” as would have been caused by a
glass bottle. One of the reserve officers, who used to be a mechanic, believed that the damage
was likely caused by an impact, possibly with a curb.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 23 | P a g e

 After they surveyed the tire damage, the reserve officers received a call that a disabled
vehicle was blocking a nearby road, and they left to address the situation. Altaheri was not happy
that they left. And after the reserve officers finished assisting with the disabled vehicle, they
were called back to Remas and told to grab an air pump from the police station on the way back.
The reserve officers then drove to the police station to retrieve an air pump before returning to
Remas, even though the air pump was never going to work on the flat tire, given the tire’s
condition.

That additional delay only increased Altaheri’s frustration. Altaheri soon demanded that
another officer leave the shooting scene and drive to Remas to assist with the flat tire. The officer
did as he was told, even though it was an active crime scene that the officer was assisting in
processing.

The reserve officers arrived back at Remas around the same time that the officer coming
from the crime scene did. The latter officer remained in his car, while the reserve officers turned
back to the flat tire. By this time, Altaheri was agitated and angry about the delay. According to
the reserve officers, Altaheri approached one of the reserve officers, poking him once in the
chest and then continuing to poke in the officer’s direction while yelling at them. Altaheri was
close enough that the reserve officer could smell alcohol on Altaheri’s breath. According to the
reserve officers, Altaheri was also staggering, and it was apparent from his eyes that he had been
drinking.

A tow truck arrived, and someone dropped off a spare Chevy Tahoe in case Altaheri
needed another ride. But Altaheri did not want his truck towed. Instead, the officers tried
repeatedly to force the spare tire onto the truck, which was no easy feat given the damage. They
eventually succeeded and then left the parking lot. One of the reserve officers drove the spare
Tahoe. The other reserve officer followed Altaheri out of the parking lot.

At the very first intersection, Altaheri made a left turn from the wrong lane, almost
crashing into another car that had been turning left from the correct lane. Out of concern, the
reserve officer continued following Altaheri, eventually pulling beside him at a carwash and
asking Altaheri if he was okay. Altaheri shrugged it off and said he was fine and heading home.
While all of this was happening, the shooting suspect remained at large.

Both reserve officers stated to Miller Johnson that, based on what they observed, there
was no question that Altaheri was intoxicated. Other officers who interacted with Altaheri were
less sure, or expressed no concerns, although at least two other officers noted Altaheri’s unusual
behavior. Altaheri’s erratic driving and the damage to his City-issued truck also partially
corroborated the reserve officers’ concerns that Altaheri had consumed alcohol, although several
people noted that Altaheri was not a great driver generally.

For his part, Altaheri denied consuming alcohol before driving his City-issued truck that
night, suggesting that the reserve officers were biased against him. He also denied getting close
to either of them physically or jabbing a finger in their direction or into either of their chests, and
he denied driving erratically. Altaheri also reiterated his claim that the flat tire was caused by a
glass bottle, and he contended that the officer who left the crime scene came by the restaurant of

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 24 | P a g e

his own accord. And we have no reason to doubt Altaheri’s contention that the other two men
who were with him that night would corroborate his account.

The variation in the firsthand witness accounts creates a difficult factual question. If one
were to credit the reserve officers’ observations, Altaheri violated HPD Rule 2.11(N) by
operating his City-issued truck after having consuming alcoholic beverages and violated HPD
Rule 2.11(KK) by driving recklessly. The interference caused with his ability to attend to his
police duties that night violated HPD Rule 2.11(E), and his conduct toward the reserve officers
violated HPD Rule 2.124. At the very least, in requiring other officers to devote HPD resources
to assist him personally during an all-hands-on-deck manhunt for a double shooter, Altaheri
“impair[ed] the operation or efficiency of the Department,” in violation of HPD Rule 2.11(A).

c. Altaheri’s other driving or willingness to drive in his City-

issued truck after consuming alcohol

Altaheri’s driving in his City-issued truck after consuming alcohol does not appear to
have been an isolated incident or momentary lapse in judgment. Many of the witnesses who were
interviewed—and who interacted with Altaheri regularly—expressed concerns that Altaheri
routinely showed up to the police station smelling of alcohol and appearing intoxicated or
hungover. They also cited other examples of Altaheri driving or attempting to drive his City-
issued truck while noticeably intoxicated or after having consumed alcohol.

One example occurred when Altaheri visited a bar managed by another HPD officer.
While at that bar, Altaheri drank at least six Jack and Cokes. He appeared visibly intoxicated to
the officer, who offered to drive Altaheri home. But Altaheri refused the offer and instead drove
himself home. Altaheri was in his City-issued truck, and he said that he would turn on his lights
and sirens on the way home if needed. If Altaheri had been anyone else, the officer would have
taken his keys away, but the officer did not feel like he had the ability to do so given Altaheri’s
authority over him as Police Chief.

On another occasion, Altaheri went to a different bar, owned by a different officer. While
there, Altaheri drank so much that he started falling asleep at the bar. Altaheri was still willing to
drive home in his City-issued truck, though. Eventually, the officer intervened and was able to
insist on driving Altaheri home. While Altaheri did not drive while intoxicated on that occasion,
his willingness to do so corroborates the other examples cited above, when he drove his City-
issued truck after having consumed alcohol.

3. Providing a loaded gun to a civilian and instructing her in a manner

inconsistent with proper procedures

The evidence substantiated the allegation that Altaheri handed a loaded gun to a civilian
volunteer in a way that violated HPD’s rules and regulations and the incorporated provisions of
Michigan law. That incident occurred on April 30, 2025. It was surreptitiously recorded by
Adamczyk, and the recording was later posted online and the subject of local news articles.

The incident occurred in Altaheri’s office. Adamczyk and another officer were there. The
officer had just received a call on his cell phone when the civilian volunteer came to the door.
That volunteer frequently assists HPD personnel with day-to-day tasks. When she came to the

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 25 | P a g e

door, Altaheri handed his firearm to her and told her to point the firearm at a shop owner’s head
to get some eyeglasses:

Altaheri: “Yeah, come in. Yeah, Carol.”

Officer: [Talking on the phone in the background.]

Volunteer: “I didn’t know you guys were here.”

Officer: [Talking on the phone in the background.]

Volunteer: “Uh, the eyeglass place called. I gotta go. Um, he wants the frames, and he
wants the money.”

Altaheri: “Here, take my gun.”

Volunteer: “I gotta go now.”

Altaheri: “Take my gun.”

Volunteer: “Dave?”

Adamczyk: “Yes?”

Altaheri: “[Redacted] . . .”

Volunteer: “Where am I going for the, um, ride-along.”

Officer: [Talking on the phone in the background.]

Altaheri: “Point this at his fucking head and tell him, ‘Gimme the frame.’”

Volunteer: “Huh?”

Altaheri: “Go put it in his head and tell him, ‘Gimme the frame.’ I’m serious.”

Volunteer: “Okay.”

Altaheri: “Put it right here and tell him.”

Volunteer: [Makes an uncomfortable noise.]

Altaheri: “Go ahead. Get the fucking glasses and come back. Alright? Go put it to his
head. Let me know how it goes.”

Volunteer: “Uh-huh.”

Altaheri: “You do it, or no?”

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 26 | P a g e

 Officer: “Is it loaded?”

Volunteer: “Put it in the office?”

Altaheri: “It is loaded.”

Officer: “Oh.”

Altaheri: “She ain’t getting shit. She got fuckin’ nine lives.”

In his interview, the other officer in the room confirmed that the recording was accurate
and that Altaheri had handed his loaded firearm to the civilian volunteer. As the officer
explained, the incident occurred during the afternoon, after Altaheri had called both Adamczyk
and the officer into his office. While they were talking, the officer took a phone call on his cell
phone regarding a background investigation for an HPD applicant.

As the officer was talking on the phone, the volunteer came inside the office. The officer
initially had his back to the others, but when he turned around, he saw that Altaheri had given her
the firearm. Altaheri had unholstered the gun prior to doing so, and he handed it to her with the
barrel pointing down.

The officer explained that the volunteer took the gun by pinching it with her index fingers
and thumbs, holding it by the grip, with the barrel still facing down. She then let out an
uncomfortable noise—audible on the recording—that sounded like she was scared. This noise
caused the officer to turn around. When he saw her holding the gun, he asked Altaheri if it was
loaded, and Altaheri confirmed that it was.

The officer then took the gun from her and placed it in a drawer behind Altaheri’s chair.
He did not hand the gun back to Altaheri, because he was concerned that Altaheri would
immediately give it back to her.

In his interview with Miller Johnson, Altaheri claimed that the entire incident was a
preplanned joke, suggested by Adamczyk, and that Altaheri had unloaded the gun before the
volunteer had arrived, including by taking a bullet out of the chamber. According to Altaheri, the
other officer did not know about the “joke” beforehand and was unaware that he had unloaded
the gun. Altaheri claimed that the officer was laughing with the others in the room, though, and
Altaheri suggested that the recording of the incident had been manipulated because the laughing
had been left out. Altaheri initially agreed during his interview that the volunteer had the gun in
her hand at one point, but he later equivocated and claimed that he did not remember if she had
the gun in her hand. Altaheri also minimized the significance of the event and resisted the notion
that handing a City-issued gun to her presented any kind of danger or a violation of his duties,
twice stating that he allows his son to handle his gun when it’s unloaded in the same way.

The civilian volunteer was not interviewed about the incident, because she already
released a video-recorded public statement on it. In that statement, she parroted Altaheri’s
characterization of what happened as a “joke,” criticized Adamczyk for recording her, claimed
that Adamczyk was in on the joke, and threatened to sue Adamczyk. But although she was and
remains close friends with Altaheri, she never denied that Altaheri handed her a loaded gun. Had

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 27 | P a g e

that been true, it would have been an obvious point for her to make in that initial public
statement.

Based on the evidence, Altaheri’s account was not credible. Even assuming that Altaheri
was “joking” about the volunteer committing armed robbery (and we accept his contention that
he was), handing a City-issued police firearm to an untrained civilian volunteer in a crowded
room is reckless and a violation of his job duties. And Altaheri’s story about the gun being
“unloaded”—and part of a previously suggested joke—is implausible given the officer’s
description of what happened before and during the recording. The officer otherwise viewed
Altaheri favorably and had no reason to lie about this incident. The officer’s account also
matched the recording, and the officer confirmed that the recording was accurate, belying
Altaheri’s contention that the recording was “altered” in any material way. In addition, the
officer recounted the incident to at least three other witnesses after the recording was publicly
released, and his accounts to those witnesses matched what he later said to Miller Johnson.

Given this evidence, Altaheri violated HPD’s rules and regulations and the incorporated
provisions of Michigan law regarding gun safety. HPD Rule 2.11(LL) requires officers to carry
their firearms “in accordance with law and established departmental procedures,” and HPD Rule
16.5(F) prohibits officers from “draw[ing] or exhibit[ing] their firearms” unless necessary for
carrying out their duties or general maintenance, storage, or authorized training. None of those
permissible justifications applied to these circumstances. HPD Rule 2.11(PP) also prohibits
officers from using firearms and other weapons “in a careless or imprudent manner,” and HPD
Rule 2.11(C) and the incorporated provision of Michigan law, MCL 752.862[a], prohibit officers
from “recklessly or heedlessly” carrying or handling “any firearm without due caution and
circumspection for the rights, safety or property of others.” In handing his gun to a civilian
volunteer in the way that he did, Altaheri violated those requirements and created a significant
risk of accidentally discharging the weapon and harming her or others nearby. As one HPD
supervisor explained, if any other officer behaved as Altaheri did with a firearm, that officer
would almost certainly be terminated.

4. False incident reporting and related misconduct pertaining to

domestic disturbances at Altaheri’s home

After he became Police Chief, Altaheri lived at a house in Hamtramck with the mother of
his child and their two-year-old son. Over the past year, HPD officers responded to at least five
911 calls to the house. Some of the calls involved disputes between Altaheri and his partner.

The investigation substantiated one of the most serious allegations regarding those
incidents: that Altaheri pressured officers to conduct an improper investigation and write a false
or misleading police report that would portray her unfavorably and assist Altaheri in obtaining
custody of their son.

a. Altaheri’s request for an investigation and police report to help

him with a custody dispute involving the mother of his child

On the afternoon of September 19, 2024—before the Post 6 party and Coliseum outing
described above—HPD officers responded to a 911 hang-up call at Altaheri’s house. In the

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 28 | P a g e

recording of the call, Altaheri and the mother of his child can briefly be heard arguing in the
background. A radio alert directed officers to 5224 Trowbridge, with a subsequent radio alert
soon clarifying that it was Altaheri’s residence. At least one officer then appears to have spoken
with Altaheri or the woman by phone, because another radio alert soon clarified that “the female
there” was “dizzy and not feeling good” and suggested that the officers “check on her.”

At some point after the 911 hang-up call, Altaheri left the house. Altaheri appears to have
known about the 911 call and the responding officers, though, because he then came back to the
house, returning soon after the officers arrived and making it seem as though he was responding
with them out of concern. Four officers responded to the house, along with a trainee (who no
longer works for HPD), and they knocked on the door for a few minutes until Altaheri arrived
and unlocked it.

The officers went inside the house. The house is a bungalow, and the ground floor was
under construction. The woman had been upstairs, and she was making her way to the ground
floor slowly because she had an injured foot. One of her toes was bleeding a lot, and she said that
she stubbed it on the stove. She was holding their son. She did not say anything about Altaheri
being there earlier.

At various points, Altaheri told three of the officers that he thought she was on pills and
wanted the officers to question and investigate her for it. Altaheri also mentioned that he and the
woman were having a custody dispute over their son and suggested to the officers that their
investigation of her for pills could help him in that dispute. Two of the officers then asked her
whether she was taking pills, while the third officer half-heartedly looked around the room to see
if there were any pills or related evidence in plain sight. She denied taking pills.

The fourth officer, who had been standing farthest away, heard the other officers ask her
if she had been taking any pills. Those questions—randomly asking her about drug use—seemed
to him unwarranted on a medical call. The woman was talking fine and seemed okay, and there
was nothing that would have triggered the officers to ask her about drugs. That officer did not
care to be part of that situation any longer, so when he heard that line of questioning, he left the
house.

None of the three remaining officers found any evidence that she was on pills. Altaheri,
though, wanted it documented that she was on pills, and he wanted them to write a police report
stating as much. When one of the officers told Altaheri that he didn’t think he could write a
report like that, Altaheri responded that the officer shouldn’t worry about writing a report, then,
or making any notation about the incident in his notes. The other two remaining officers, though,
thought that her eyes looked like she might have been intoxicated. Altaheri told them to write the
police report in that way and to leave it as vague as possible, so that it could help him with the
custody dispute. One of those officers also remembers Altaheri telling them to turn off their body
cameras, although the officers’ recollections on that point differed.

The written police report, obtained by Miller Johnson, briefly described the officers’
interactions with the woman and stated that the officer “observed her eyes to be glossy,
bloodshot, and . . . not to react to light.” The report also omitted any mention of Altaheri being at
the scene or present in the house during the events.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 29 | P a g e

 When asked about this incident during his interview with Miller Johnson, Altaheri denied
being at the house before the officers arrived. He stated that he was concerned when he heard
that the mother of his child had fainted, because she takes Percocet pills and has bipolar disorder
and previously put their son in danger. He denied telling the officers to investigate her for pills to
help him in a custody dispute. He claimed that he had merely been concerned about his son
finding and ingesting pills and that he had just told the officers to “write what you see.”

This issue, again, demonstrates that Altaheri was not truthful during our investigation.
One problem with Altaheri’s account is that it does not mesh with the 911 hang-up call, on which
Altaheri’s voice can be heard arguing with the woman before the officers arrived. Another
problem is that Altaheri lived in that house. If he had legitimate concerns about pills or other
drug use, he could easily have taken action independently to assist her or protect his son, without
involving or pressuring other officers to investigate her on his behalf in ways that appeared
unwarranted. Another problem is that all four officers remembered being uncomfortable with
Altaheri’s request that they investigate her for pills in those circumstances, and the three officers
who spoke with Altaheri all remembered him telling them that he wanted to bolster his position
in obtaining custody of his son. Finally, it is notable that Altaheri is not listed or mentioned in the
police report.

Based on the above evidence, Altaheri’s misuse of police resources violated HPD’s rules
and regulations, most notably the “abuse of position” prohibition in HPD Rule 2.11(R). Altaheri
also violated HPD Rule 2.11(GG) by “caus[ing]” another officer to enter an improper report, and
he violated HPD Rules 2.11(A) and 2.11(B) for unbecoming and immoral conduct, respectively.

b. Other calls and domestic disturbances at Altaheri’s house

The investigation neither confirmed nor dispelled the allegations that Altaheri engaged in
domestic violence. Some of the 911 calls contain suggestions of past or ongoing domestic
violence, either verbally or circumstantially, including in a call on which the mother of his child
attempted to disguise her identity by claiming to be a concerned “friend.” 911 call records and
the voice on the recording suggest that the “friend” was actually the woman calling on her own
behalf. Further, she specifically accused Altaheri of domestic violence in a recording released
publicly by Adamczyk, detailing incidents in which she claimed that he had abused her. That
recording was taken on a cruise in late 2024 or early 2025, on which Adamczyk and his wife
accompanied them. Later, in a written statement submitted from her email account, she retracted
her domestic-violence allegations and stated that “[a]t no point” had she “been harmed, abused,
or threatened by Chief Altaheri.”

Other than the calls and recording mentioned above, the investigation did not uncover
any documentary, electronic, physical, or other evidence of domestic violence. Nor did any
witnesses express concerns that they had observed domestic violence by Altaheri.

5. Facilitating recovery of a stolen vehicle in a manner inconsistent with

proper procedures

The investigation substantiated the allegation that Altaheri violated standard police
procedures and policies when he participated in the recovery of a vehicle that had been reported

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 30 | P a g e

as stolen. Because this allegation is believed to be the subject of ongoing investigation by law
enforcement agencies, our investigation of the allegation was limited to determining whether
Altaheri’s conduct in connection with the vehicle violated standard police practices for the
handling and recovery of stolen vehicles.

a. Recovery of the stolen car in Dearborn

On March 9, 2025, Altaheri, Adamczyk, and two other men met for dinner at Lelli’s on
the Green. One of the other men was a longtime friend of Altaheri’s and owned an auto mall in
New York. Afterward, the group stopped at an event in Warren and discussed retrieving a
vehicle that had been reported stolen in New York and was now located in Dearborn. The
vehicle, a 2022 white Mercedes Benz Model G63 worth over $100,000, was in the possession of
another acquaintance of Altaheri’s. That acquaintance’s ex-fiancé had owned the car and
reported it stolen.

According to Adamczyk, Altaheri and the auto-mall owner represented that the auto-mall
owner had co-signed the loan on the Mercedes and had an interest in ensuring its return to New
York. Adamczyk did not believe that the man was the car’s owner. Adamczyk said Altaheri gave
him the number of the NYPD detective assigned to the matter, who confirmed it had been
reported as stolen. Additionally, although Adamczyk could not recall in his interview whether he
had verified that the car was stolen in LEIN, in an April 2025 email, he said he “personally
verified the vehicle was stolen by LEIN. . . .” Adamczyk did not discuss any plan with the
NYPD detective for recovery of the vehicle. After the Warren event and a brief stop at the HPD
station, Adamczyk and the other two men traveled to a condo in Dearborn, where they
understood that Altaheri’s other acquaintance would be turning over the keys.

On arrival, Altaheri’s acquaintance was outside the condo, and he turned over the keys to
the Mercedes. Adamczyk had driven there in his City-issued undercover vehicle, and the other
two men had traveled there together in a rental car. The auto-mall owner then drove the
Mercedes to Altaheri’s current partner’s house in Livonia, with Adamczyk following in his car,
and the other man driving the rental car. On their arrival, Altaheri was waiting out front, and he
directed them to drive the Mercedes over the lawn and park it in the backyard. Sometime after
Adamczyk left, the son of one of the other men drove the car back to New York.

Adamczyk claimed to Miller Johnson that he had participated in this venture at Altaheri’s
direction. He also claimed that, by the end, he sensed something was amiss and became angry
with Altaheri, throwing his keys at him and declaring that he was “done” engaging in misdeeds
at Altaheri’s request. Adamczyk claimed that he repeatedly asked Altaheri why they were not
calling Dearborn and ordering a flatbed, typical police practice when recovering a stolen vehicle
in another jurisdiction. He said Altaheri rebuffed these suggestions.

According to Altaheri, it was Adamczyk who had insisted on helping recover the
Mercedes. Altaheri said it was his understanding that the auto-mall owner had recently purchased
the vehicle, and Altaheri said he had relied on Adamczyk’s representations that the paperwork
for the vehicle was legitimate. Additionally, Altaheri said that Adamczyk had spoken with the
NYPD detectives assigned to the matter, and they were fine with the plan—and, indeed,

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 31 | P a g e

Adamczyk had even put Altaheri on the phone with one of the detectives, who said the car was
“good.” Altaheri claimed that he was upset that the car was taken to his partner’s residence.

Notwithstanding the differing accounts of Adamczyk and Altaheri on some of the

points—such as whose idea the entire episode was—there is no dispute about the basic facts:
Adamczyk and two civilians went to Dearborn, with Altaheri’s knowledge; to assist Altaheri’s
friend, they retrieved a car that had been reported stolen; they brought it to Altaheri’s partner’s
house, where Altaheri was; and the car remained in the yard of the house until it was driven back
to New York by another civilian. GPS location information extracted from Adamczyk’s City-
issued phone corroborates the series of events. Miller Johnson also obtained a video recording
that Adamczyk made of himself calling one of the other men on May 3, 2025, and that same
individual admitted during the May 23, 2025 Hamtramck City Council meeting that he
participated in the recovery of the car and that his son drove the car back to New York.

Further, in a text message Adamczyk provided, Adamczyk appears to ask Altaheri about
the matter, with reference to the NYPD detective handling it:

This supports Adamczyk’s assertion that he did not know what happened to the vehicle
after he left it at Altaheri’s house, and that Altaheri was involved in the concerted activity to
retrieve the vehicle.

b. Disputes over ownership of the car and its recovery

In the weeks that followed, efforts by various parties were undertaken to confirm or
dispel the suggestion that the recovery of the vehicle was improper. Adamczyk said in his
interview that he went to Garbarino within a few days of the incident and told him that they

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 32 | P a g e

“went and got a car” and that it was “jacked up.” Adamczyk said he did not go into detail then,
but he also claimed to have discussed the episode with Garbarino again, together with the City
Attorney, a few weeks later, at the beginning of April. No evidence corroborates Adamczyk’s
contentions. The earliest that he appears to have told Garbarino or the City Attorney about this
incident was April 23.

The ownership of the vehicle remained in dispute following its return to New York. In
late March, Altaheri appeared at the 67th Precinct to assist the auto-mall owner in sorting out the
title. Meanwhile, on April 17, the woman who had reported the vehicle as stolen in New York
filed a complaint with the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau complaining that Altaheri had
improperly assisted in the efforts to recover the vehicle. Although she requested anonymity, the
complaint was sent on April 30 to an HPD officer, who then forwarded it to Altaheri.

In late May, a person known to associate with Altaheri forwarded documentation to

Garbarino purporting to be a bill of sale and title reflecting a March 7 sale of the Mercedes from
the woman who had reported it stolen. Miller Johnson has not confirmed the authenticity of the
documents, and at least some of the information on them appears to be incorrect.

c. Deviations from standard police practices

The March 9 stolen vehicle recovery deviated from standard police practices in myriad
ways. First, Michigan state law, a Dearborn ordinance, and HPD rules require that recovery of a
stolen vehicle be immediately reported in LEIN. MCL 257.252; Dearborn Ord. 18-366; HPD
Rule 4.5B (specifying procedure for recovered out-of-state vehicles). There is no indication that
was done here. Even if Altaheri believed that the vehicle’s ownership had changed hands, the
fact that the vehicle had been reported as stolen was known to Altaheri.

Second, Dearborn police should have been notified that a vehicle that had been reported
as stolen was being recovered from its streets. In general, Michigan law provides that municipal
officers can act outside their jurisdictions in limited situations, in hot pursuit or emergency
situations, when executing a court order, or when acting under a mutual aid agreement or with
the local jurisdiction’s consent. MCL 765.2a; see also HPD Rule 2.11(FF) (setting out general
non-interference policy for cases being handled by other officers). Adamczyk had been
deputized by the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office, but deputizations are personal, MCL 51.70,
and thus Adamczyk’s deputization would not have extended to Altaheri. Further, even if they
had authority to act in Dearborn, under standard law enforcement deconfliction practices
designed to protect the safety of officers and the public, they should have notified the local
police department of their plan to retrieve the vehicle. If two agencies unknowingly plan
operations in the same area—such as recovering a stolen vehicle—without deconfliction, it could
lead to dangerous misunderstandings or even friendly fire incidents.

Third, no police report was written, no body camera appears to have been used, and no
record of the stolen property was otherwise made. Civilians were involved in the recovery of the
vehicle—including a convicted felon. No investigation appears to have been undertaken with
respect to Altaheri’s acquaintance, who was initially in possession of the Mercedes in Dearborn.
That individual is known to have had previous run-ins with the law and, at a minimum, was
suspected of taking the vehicle unlawfully and without permission. The car was secreted in the

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 33 | P a g e

backyard of Altaheri’s house and driven back to New York by another civilian, with none of the
usual records made of the law enforcement event.

As discussed below, Adamczyk bears responsibility for the actions he took—and did not
take—with respect to the recovery of the car. But that does not absolve Altaheri, who, as police
chief, is responsible for ensuring that he and the officers under him follow proper police
procedures. Altaheri was not merely a blameless bystander to the conduct. Altaheri is a longtime
friend or acquaintance of several individuals involved in the events. And he admitted that he had
been the one who talked his acquaintance into turning over the car in Dearborn. Additionally, as
noted above, Altaheri acknowledged that later that month, he accompanied the auto-mall owner
to the 67th Precinct in New York to assist him in having the stolen vehicle tracking mechanism
removed from the car and settle the car’s ownership, which apparently remained in dispute.
While there, Altaheri encountered the woman who had reported the car stolen. These facts reflect
that Altaheri took an active interest in recovering the car, and it is implausible that he had no idea
that the manner in which the vehicle was recovered was inconsistent with standard police
procedures. Indeed, the facts strongly suggest that Altaheri was using his position as the police
chief to help his friend out, without following regular police procedures, in violation of HPD
Rule 2.11(R)(2).

6. Creating Hamtramck ID cards for Mark Zarkin

The investigation substantiated the allegation that Altaheri requested the creation of
Hamtramck ID cards for Mark Zarkin, but it did not substantiate a finding that Altaheri
committed any violations of policy in doing so.

Hamtramck uses an outdated software program to produce ID cards for City employees.
The software is available only on the evidence technician’s computer, and he is responsible for
creating IDs. The software uses a different template for HPD employees than it does for other
City employees—with a different color background—so that employees and third parties can
distinguish between the two. A third template, with yet another color background, was created
for IDs that Altaheri issued to members of the Citizens Academy.

At Altaheri’s request, the evidence technician created at least two Hamtramck ID cards
for Mark Zarkin, who is not employed by or otherwise affiliated with the City. The first time,
Altaheri texted a picture of Zarkin to the evidence technician and told him to create a Hamtramck
ID for Zarkin as a “Community Liaison”:

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 34 | P a g e

 The evidence technician created the ID but removed any language about “officer” or
“sworn.” He then gave the ID to Altaheri, who invited the evidence technician to a steak dinner
at Zarkin’s restaurant, as reflected in the texts above.

A few weeks later, Altaheri called the evidence technician and offered him overtime to
make another ID for Zarkin. This time, at Altaheri’s request, the evidence technician made an ID
for Zarkin—using the HPD template—that said “Chief Director of Political and Community
Affairs”:

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 35 | P a g e

 At Altaheri’s request, the evidence technician made a formatting change and then left the
ID on Altaheri’s desk, texting Altaheri a picture of it:

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 36 | P a g e

 According to the evidence technician, he did not hear about the ID again until the news
broke about Adamczyk’s allegations. Adamczyk’s description of the ID did not mesh with the
evidence technician’s recollection of what the ID had looked like, so the evidence technician
went back to his computer and checked it. On his computer was a new version of the ID, which
the evidence technician had not made. That version said “Chief Director,” but omitted the
“Political and Community Affairs” qualifier that had previously been included. A screenshot
from the evidence technician’s computer shows the difference:

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 37 | P a g e

 The evidence technician claims that he did not make that change, and he noted to Miller
Johnson that Adamczyk was one of the few other people with access to his computer. For his
part, Adamczyk claims that the evidence technician created this final “Chief Director” version at
Altaheri’s behest and that Adamczyk then delivered the ID to Altaheri at a party.

The investigation was unable to confirm either account regarding that third ID card, or
even whether that third version was ever printed at all. The software on the computer also does
not reflect who would have created or printed the ID, because the user credentials did not vary
for that purpose. And none of the IDs have been recovered or returned to the City. Altaheri
claimed during his interview that at least one of the IDs had been returned and either he has it
somewhere or it remained on his desk. A search of his desk did not uncover it, and Altaheri has
not provided it.

Creating any Hamtramck ID card for Zarkin showed poor judgment. Zarkin was not
employed by the City in any capacity, much less in a police role. He did not pass a background
check; he was previously terminated from a law enforcement position because of a since-vacated
conviction for criminal sexual conduct; and providing him a City or HPD ID risked creating a
misimpression among City employees or third parties about what his role or authority might be.
It is not difficult to imagine that someone in Zarkin’s shoes, once provided with such an ID,
might use it falsely to identify himself as a police officer in violation of Michigan law. See MCL
750.215, 750.216b. That risk is particularly acute for the third version of the ID—if it was ever
created—which says “Chief Director” and lacks any other qualifier.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 38 | P a g e

 That said, the investigation did not corroborate Adamczyk’s claim that the third version
of the ID was ever created or given to Zarkin. Nor was the investigation able to confirm whether
Zarkin ever used the ID in ways that violated the law. And the inherent limitations in the
investigation prevented any determination of whether any money was exchanged for the IDs.
Further, because of gaps in City policies, the mere creation of Zarkin’s IDs does not appear to
have violated any specific rules or regulations. We would strongly recommend, however, that the
City implement stronger policies and security measures governing the creation of Hamtramck
IDs going forward.

Relatedly, the City should implement stronger guardrails and policies concerning the
HPD Citizens Academy. None of the Citizens Academy members were required to undergo
background checks, resulting in a sex offender becoming a member of the Citizens Academy and
being issued a Hamtramck ID for it. HPD officers are prohibited under HPD Rule 2.11(X) from
“regular and continuous associations” with most individuals engaged in felonious conduct.
Allowing a sex offender to become a card-carrying member of the Citizens Academy is, at the
very least, in tension with that rule.

7. Other miscellaneous allegations against Altaheri

a. Email and signature access

When Altaheri gave Adamczyk his new special assignment as an investigator in late
2024, Altaheri asked the City’s Chief Information Officer to give Adamczyk read/write/manage
access to his City email accounts: a newly created “policechief” account and Altaheri’s personal
“jaltaheri” account. Altaheri was told that doing so was against policy and a bad idea, but
Altaheri insisted on it.

Altaheri’s sharing of those accounts violated HPD Rule 8.53, as well as HPD’s Physical
Protection Policy. It also enabled some of Adamczyk’s misconduct, detailed below, particularly
when combined with allowing Adamczyk to sign documents and approvals on Altaheri’s behalf
using Altaheri’s electronic signature. Though Altaheri claimed during his interview that he did
not know that Adamczyk was signing documents on his behalf, that claim was not credible given
the documentary evidence and witness interviews establishing that Altaheri was well aware of
Adamczyk’s access to and use of his electronic signature and email accounts.

b. Improper conduct during HPD meetings

Two incidents involving Altaheri’s conduct toward other officers rise to a violation of
HPD rules and regulations, particularly the rules and regulations governing harassment and
abuse of position. HPD Rules 2.11(R), 2.121–2.125.

i. May 20, 2025, meeting regarding special assignments

The first incident occurred during a meeting on May 20, 2025, when Altaheri removed
Adamczyk and another officer from their special assignments. As discussed below, there were
likely good reasons for removing Adamczyk from his special assignments. But Altaheri decided
to remove the other officer from a special assignment too, telling others that he was taking action
against that other officer only as a pretext so that he would not appear to be singling Adamczyk

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 39 | P a g e

out. Altaheri’s plan was to reinstate the other officer in the special assignment after the dust
settled.

At the meeting itself, however, Altaheri lost control. He threatened physical violence
against the officers, asking an employee to come nearby in case he needed that employee to
“body-slam someone.” He screamed at several of the officers that they were “pussies,” flipped
out on one of the officers for having his hands in his pockets, and continued screaming at them
throughout the meeting.

Nothing about that context justified Altaheri’s behavior. The threats of physical violence
against fellow officers, in particular, were far removed from the conduct expected of any HPD
officer—particularly the Police Chief.

ii. Threats during Altaheri’s administrative leave meeting

The meeting on May 21, 2025, when Altaheri was placed on administrative leave, was
recorded. The recording has full audio and limited video of what transpired. On the recording,
Altaheri can again be heard hinting at physical violence, telling Garbarino’s office assistant to
“step out” of the room “for his own safety.” As the meeting progressed, Altaheri increasingly
screamed at Garbarino and threatened him with retaliation, and at one point, the video shows
Altaheri physically confronting Garbarino with his finger pointing toward Garbarino’s chest.
When Garbarino left the room briefly to speak with the Mayor, Altaheri went on a tirade,
screaming, “I know who you are and where you are,” and then turned his ire toward the other
officers in the room. And Altaheri repeatedly threatened to investigate and retaliate against
Garbarino, telling Garbarino that he needed to “remember that.”

The recording corroborates the accounts from other witnesses who were in the room
during that meeting. And even accounting for the emotion inherent in this situation, Altaheri’s
conduct during that meeting was wholly inappropriate, was meant to intimidate others, and
violated the HPD rules and regulations identified above.

c. Allegations regarding Altaheri and the owner of a local towing

company

The investigation did not substantiate the allegation that Altaheri attempted to extort the
owner of a local towing company. There is evidence that the towing company was asked to—and
did—sponsor HPD’s Youth Academy and Citizens Academy. But there is nothing wrong with
that type of sponsorship, as long as it is handled in the correct way.

There is some evidence that Altaheri considered requesting money from the towing
company’s owner in other ways. Adamczyk claims to have heard Altaheri making statements
along those lines, and other witnesses recounted an incident when Altaheri suggested sending the
towing company’s owner the bill for HPD’s new weightroom. Even on their own terms, though,
those accounts did not express any personal knowledge that Altaheri’s suggestions or plans were
implemented in ways that resulted in improper demands being made of the towing company’s
owner. So there is no evidence to rebut the information, proffered by Altaheri’s attorney, that the
towing company’s owner stated that Altaheri never requested any money from him

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 40 | P a g e

inappropriately. And the inherent limitations on this internal investigation prevent any further
inquiry into the matter.

d. Pardon allegations

One of the allegations raised by Adamczyk involved a pardon-related scheme. Given the
inherent limitations on this internal investigation, as well as the possible involvement of law
enforcement, this investigation did not address those allegations and expresses no opinion on
them.

D. Allegations Against Officer David Adamczyk

As with Altaheri, the investigation substantiated many (though not all) of the allegations
against Adamczyk.

1. Recording other officers and lying about it during his interview

Adamczyk recorded other HPD officers, often without their knowledge. As a general
matter, recording those conversations was not illegal as long as Adamczyk was a party to the
conversations. See Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289, 294–98 (6th Cir. 2022). And as a general
matter, those recordings also did not violate any blanket prohibitions in HPD’s rules and
regulations, which forbid officers from recording other officers only when done during routine
non-enforcement activities using the officer’s body camera. HPD Rule 8.3(VI).

However, and as explained in more detail below, Adamczyk appears to have created
many of the recordings as a way to gain leverage over Altaheri and other officers. In doing so,
Adamczyk violated HPD’s rules and regulations and undermined the professionalism and trust
essential to HPD’s operations. Indeed, several officers emphasized during their interviews that
Adamczyk’s reputation for recording other officers was one of the reasons that they did not trust
him. In this respect, Adamczyk’s actions violated HPD Rules 2.11(A) and 2.11(B), which
prohibit unbecoming and immoral conduct. Additionally, to the extent that public dissemination
of surreptitiously recorded statements is deemed “speech” or “expression,” and tends to damage
the reputation of the City or its employees, Adamczyk’s conduct in releasing such recordings
arguably violates City Policy 8.8.4.

Adamczyk compounded these problems by lying about the extent of the recordings
during his interview with Miller Johnson. Adamczyk was asked at least twice during his
interview whether he recorded other officers in circumstances other than the ones that are
publicly known. One of those questions was based on information learned from an officer who
told Miller Johnson that he personally witnessed Adamczyk recording a phone conversation with
a detective. When asked questions about any other recordings, Adamczyk categorically denied
their existence, stating to Miller Johnson that he “did not record [his] fellow officers.”

Adamczyk’s City-issued phone tells a different story. Using an e-discovery vendor,

Miller Johnson obtained and imaged that phone after it was returned to Hamtramck by the FBI.
On that phone is a series of recordings that Adamczyk made of conversations with other officers.
One of those conversations matches the timing and description of the conversation witnessed by
the officer above. Some of those conversations, and the timing of those conversations, support

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 41 | P a g e

the inferences described below regarding Adamczyk’s likely motivations for disclosing his
allegations against Altaheri when and how he did. Moreover, Adamczyk’s denials during his
interview violated HPD Rule 2.11(MM)’s requirements regarding truthfulness.

2. Attempting to rig the sergeant’s examination, still finishing second,

and using his allegations against Altaheri as leverage to seek
promotion anyway

Soon after Adamczyk started at HPD, Altaheri allowed him to draft the position
description for a special assignment as an investigator on detail with the Wayne County Sheriff’s
Office. That type of special assignment was highly desirable among HPD officers, because of the
opportunities that it offered for job satisfaction and career advancement. But with Altaheri’s
blessing, Adamczyk drafted the position description for that special assignment using criteria
that mirrored precisely his own private-sector resume. Adamczyk admitted during his interview
that he and Altaheri tailored the posting in that way to ensure that only Adamczyk—and no other
HPD officers—qualified for the assignment. To no one’s surprise, Adamczyk got the
assignment. A couple months later, Adamczyk was given another special assignment with
CATS.

Adamczyk soon set his sights on a promotion to sergeant. That promotion decision
hinged on whether Adamczyk outperformed other interested HPD officers on an examination
administered by a company called Empco, after the examination scores were adjusted for
seniority points. Even though Adamczyk was planning to sit for the examination, Altaheri made
Adamczyk his main point of contact with Empco and removed HPD’s previous point of contact
from those initial communications. In early January 2025, Altaheri had Adamczyk reach out to
Empco and discuss with them what Altaheri was “looking for” in the “assessment.” Adamczyk’s
discussion with Empco included specific scenarios for the examination.

Following that conversation, Adamczyk drafted an email to Empco from the

“policechief” account, copying himself and referencing that previous conversation while
purporting to be Altaheri. In the email, Adamczyk (writing as Altaheri) proposed a specific
structure for the sergeant’s examination as well as the types of scenarios that the examination
should focus on: “The purpose for this style of assessment is due to the fact that I’m re-
organizing the department and looking for leaders, not just ordinary supervisors if that makes
sense. Many of the positions and the new rank structure will have the responsibilities of higher
level presentation which would include potential press releases, and/or larger presentations to the
prosecutor’s office and/or community events.” The email then proposed a follow-up meeting
with Empco, Altaheri, and Adamczyk for later that month. Altaheri was aware of that email and
its contents, as evidenced by subsequent email traffic and Altaheri’s attendance at the meeting
referenced in those emails.

Both Altaheri and Adamczyk showed up to that meeting, which occurred on January 23,
2025, and the emails that they sent when running late for the meeting suggest that they drove
there together in the same car. When Empco learned that Adamczyk was planning to sit for the
examination, however, they became concerned and required Adamczyk to leave the room.
Empco’s notes reflect their concerns: “David was excused from meeting once introductions were
over to protect the integrity of the process (he is a potential candidate for Sergeant).” During his

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 42 | P a g e

interview with Miller Johnson, Adamczyk claimed that it was his idea to leave that meeting,
which was both nonsensical (why was he there in the first place?) and contradicted by Empco’s
account of what happened.

Still concerned about the integrity of the examination, Empco not only required
Adamczyk to leave the room, but also cut the specific scenarios that had previously been
discussed with Adamczyk. Empco then attempted to craft new scenarios with Altaheri, without
Adamczyk in the room. But some of the damage was already done: Adamczyk knew from his
previous discussions with Altaheri what the focus of the examination questions would be. And
given the circumstances, we believe it is fair to infer that Altaheri and Adamczyk discussed
additional details about the examination content after their meeting with Empco.

Empco replaced the scenarios that Adamczyk had proposed, but the examination’s focus
still mirrored Altaheri’s and Adamczyk’s original plan. The two other officers who took the
examination noted that the scenarios seemed designed for Adamczyk—even mirroring specific
circumstances that Adamczyk had recently encountered in his day-to-day role. According to the
officers, the candidates were asked in one scenario how they would handle a situation in which
an employee who had been calling in sick a lot called in sick one afternoon but was seen at a
Tigers game. A similar situation had recently occurred, and Adamczyk had been involved in the
internal investigation of it. Another scenario involved a question about CompStats data, with
which Adamczyk was intimately familiar. Empco’s notes confirm that Altaheri suggested both of
those scenarios during their meeting on January 23, 2025. The examination did not focus on
scenarios involving the kind of tactical questions that had typically been on examinations in the
past and would ordinarily be expected for a sergeant position.

Adamczyk still finished second. On the examination scoring, he finished first, but when
seniority points were included, another officer’s score was higher:

Hamtramck’s Human Resources Director returned the examination scores, adjusted for
seniority points, early in the morning on April 23, 2025, and they were forwarded to the
candidates that same morning.

Adamczyk was at a training in Dallas when he received the news, and it appears to have
caused him to change his strategy. By Adamczyk’s own admission (made later in an email),
Adamczyk called Garbarino that same day, April 23, 2025, and informed Garbarino about many
of his allegations about Altaheri’s misconduct from the previous six months. Given the
seriousness of those allegations, Garbarino instructed Adamczyk to put them in writing.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 43 | P a g e

 Adamczyk did not do so immediately. Instead, the next day, April 24, 2025, at 12:20
p.m., Adamczyk called another officer wanting to know what was happening with the sergeant
position and fishing for insight into whether he still had a path to promotion given the results.
The phone call also referenced other conversations from the previous 24 hours involving
Adamczyk’s desire for promotion. Adamczyk recorded the call, and it is one of the recorded
calls obtained from Adamczyk’s City-issued phone.

Less than four hours later, at 4:17 p.m., Adamczyk emailed Garbarino the promised list
of allegations involving Altaheri’s misconduct. The email references another call that same day
with Garbarino, in which Garbarino again told Adamczyk to put the allegations in writing. That
email is the first known list of those allegations.

Around an hour later, at 5:34 p.m., Adamczyk spoke by phone with Altaheri too. That
call was also recorded, and the recording was also obtained from Adamczyk’s City-issued phone.
The focus was Adamczyk’s special assignments and desire for promotion to sergeant, with
Adamczyk again fishing for information about how it would all play out with the different
officers who took the examination. Midway through the call, Adamczyk suggested that Altaheri
should promote him to “detective sergeant,” outside the normal process and at the Police Chief’s
discretion.

Meanwhile, Garbarino forwarded the email containing Adamczyk’s allegations to the

City Attorney, stating that he was “not sure how to take this under all the circumstances that have
been going on lately.” After speaking with the City Attorney, Garbarino told Adamczyk to report
the allegations to outside law enforcement. Adamczyk eventually did so, forwarding the email to
the FBI on May 3, 2025, and then submitting a longer narrative to the Michigan State Police on
May 7, 2025. Garbarino instructed Adamczyk to keep the allegations confidential, other than
with respect to outside law enforcement, in part because he was unsure whether the allegations
were true and did not want to accuse Altaheri publicly if the allegations were false.

Rather than maintaining confidentiality, however, Adamczyk—by his own admission--

disclosed the allegations to at least five other HPD officers. He also knew that two other officers
were aware of the allegations because they accompanied him to an in-person meeting with the
Michigan State Police. And Miller Johnson is aware of at least one other officer that Adamczyk
told. According to Adamczyk, on April 19 or 20, he even told Altaheri that he turned him in,
meaning to reference conversations he supposedly had with Garbarino and the City Attorney
after the stolen car incident (though, as noted below, there is no corroborating evidence that he
actually did so, and there is reason to be skeptical of his claim).

Meanwhile, Adamczyk continued pushing for his promotion. The officer who had
finished first decided to pass up the promotion to sergeant because it would have required
working midnights. Adamczyk was thus next in line. But Adamczyk did not want to work
midnights either, or work patrol, so he pushed for a promotion to sergeant while still maintaining
his same investigative duties and schedule. Those conversations were ongoing into May, when
Adamczyk’s allegations and Altaheri’s counter-allegations escalated to the point that both men
were put on administrative leave.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 44 | P a g e

 While not the only possible explanation for what happened, the most reasonable
inference from the events and timeline described above is that Adamczyk attempted to use his
knowledge and allegations of Altaheri’s misconduct to pressure Altaheri into promoting him
within HPD. Adamczyk denied in his interview that this was his motivation, but circumstantial
evidence points strongly toward that conclusion. Adamczyk had already tried—in part
successfully—to rig the sergeant’s examination in his favor. The release of the examination
results on April 23, 2025, and the timing and nature of his recorded calls on April 24, 2025,
suggest that he was increasingly desperate for his promotion to go forward. And the timing of
when he disclosed the allegations to Garbarino—also on April 23 and 24, 2025—suggest that he
was doing so because he thought it would give him leverage over Altaheri to get what he wanted.

Adamczyk’s decision to disclose those allegations widely to other HPD officers similarly
supports the conclusion that Adamczyk had ulterior motives. Adamczyk was an experienced
investigator, or at least claimed to be, and he knew the importance of keeping those allegations
confidential so that outside law enforcement could investigate them properly. So if he had been
serious about investigating the allegations, as he claims, he would not have acted as he did. He
would instead have allowed the FBI and Michigan State Police to investigate covertly, perhaps
using him as a source. Garbarino even instructed Adamczyk not to say anything about the
allegations to anyone other than outside law enforcement. But Adamczyk appears to have wanted
Altaheri to know that he was holding those allegations over him, and he spread the news in a
way that ensured the allegations would filter back to Altaheri. Indeed, Adamczyk admitted to
another officer that, in calling someone to discuss the stolen car incident in early May (a
conversation that Adamczyk himself recorded), he was trying to “mind-fuck the chief.”

Those actions make little sense unless Adamczyk was trying to use the allegations of
misconduct as leverage over Altaheri. And the rest of the circumstantial evidence suggests that
he was using that leverage for the increased pay and power that would accompany a promotion
to sergeant or even detective sergeant. Adamczyk had also been a firsthand witness to another
officer’s successful blackmail of Altaheri, so he knew that Altaheri was willing to bend the rules
when compromised.

In addition, when asked during his interview with Miller Johnson why he continued
working so closely with Altaheri for so long after witnessing inappropriate conduct early in their
relationship, Adamczyk stated that his goal was to “get back in [with HPD], be vindicated, and
then leave.” This admission provides important context for evaluating his conduct, credibility,
and motives with respect to the timing of the allegations that he released many months later.

Adamczyk’s remaining counterarguments do not mesh with the known evidence. The
investigation uncovered no evidence suggesting that Adamczyk told Garbarino or the City
Attorney about his allegations against Altaheri—much less in the same detail—prior to the
conversations and email on April 23 and 24, 2025. Nor is Adamczyk credible in claiming that he
told so many officers about those allegations just because he was “fed up.” Being “fed up” might
have explained one or two slip-ups—although, even then, an experienced investigator should and
would have known better. But it does not explain why Adamczyk made those allegations so well
known to so many people within HPD while Altaheri was still his boss. If anything, Adamczyk
appears to have just miscalculated about where his plan would end.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 45 | P a g e

 Adamczyk’s conduct was not a series of isolated missteps, but a sustained pattern of self-
interested actions that undermined HPD’s professionalism and mission. In doing so, Adamczyk
violated multiple HPD rules and regulations. Both his efforts to manipulate the sergeant’s
examination and his subsequent attempts to use allegations against Altaheri as leverage for
personal advancement violated HPD Rules 2.11(A) and 2.11(B), which prohibit unbecoming and
immoral conduct. As during his previous stint with HPD, Adamczyk has tried to portray himself
as a whistleblower and victim of circumstances. The evidence tells a different story.

3. Participating in the improper recovery of the stolen vehicle

As discussed above, Adamczyk actively participated in the recovery of the stolen vehicle
on March 9, 2025. As detailed in that section, although Miller Johnson’s investigation of this
allegation was limited, even a cursory review of the facts leads to the conclusion that the
recovery of the stolen vehicle substantially deviated from standard police practices, including:

 failure to enter the vehicle’s recovery in LEIN;

 failure to contact the Dearborn police;

 failure to write a report of the incident;

 failure to use body cameras;

 failure to investigate the person in possession of the vehicle;

 failure to inventory the stolen vehicle; and

 use of civilians—including a convicted felon—in recovering the vehicle and

transporting it across state lines.

Further, according to Adamczyk (but disputed by Altaheri), the auto-mall owner seeking
the vehicle’s recovery was not the owner of vehicle. If that version of the events is true, meaning
Adamczyk had no paperwork or other reliable indicator that the man owned the vehicle, there
would have been no lawful basis for him to turn the vehicle over to him.

Adamczyk’s claim that he was merely following Altaheri’s orders does not withstand
scrutiny. First, as the Police Chief of Hamtramck, Altaheri did not have authority to issue orders
to officers to conduct activities outside the City. Although Adamczyk was deputized to conduct
law enforcement activities outside Hamtramck, within Wayne County, he did not report to
Altaheri in connection with those activities—that work was to be performed pursuant to the
authority of the Wayne County Sheriff. Second, Hamtramck officers must not obey illegal
orders. HPD Rule 2.11(P). If Adamczyk’s version of the events is true, and Altaheri ordered him
to turn the car over to a civilian who (on his telling) had no ownership interest in it, it is hard to
see how Adamczyk could have perceived the order to be lawful. Moreover, there is no indication
that Altaheri precluded Adamczyk from entering the recovery in LEIN, drafting a report of the
incident, or using his body camera to record the law enforcement activity.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 46 | P a g e

 Further, as discussed above, although Adamczyk emphasized in his interview that he
timely reported the incident to Garbarino within days of it occurring, nothing corroborates that
assertion. Garbarino said that he did not learn of the incident until more than a month had passed,
on April 23, and Adamczyk’s email on April 24 confirms that Adamczyk had conveyed those
concerns to Garbarino by phone “today and yesterday.” The email does not reference any earlier
discussion of the items listed (including the stolen car incident), and neither does any other
writing of which we are aware. Further, as noted in the previous section, April 24 was the day
after the sergeant’s examination results issued and the same day that Adamczyk made recordings
discussing his frustration with not being promoted. This timing casts significant doubt on
Adamczyk’s claim that he had immediate regret about his participation in the stolen vehicle
recovery and took appropriate steps to notify his superiors of it. Altaheri’s and Adamczyk’s
relationship also does not appear to have soured in the days following the stolen car incident,
which would have been unusual if Adamczyk had truly acted in the ways he now claims, such as
by throwing his keys at Altaheri at the end of the incident and declaring that he was “done”
engaging in misdeeds at Altaheri’s request.

4. Committing overtime abuse or timecard fraud

Miller Johnson’s investigation uncovered evidence supporting the allegations that

Adamczyk submitted overtime for hours not actually worked or mischaracterized the nature of
his overtime. The investigation of this allegation was limited by several factors, including the
lack of documentation evidencing the work that Adamczyk performed during his purported
overtime hours. Because Adamczyk reported directly to Altaheri for much of the period under
investigation, other HPD officers had little basis to challenge or question Adamczyk’s reported
time or require any documentation.

Although Adamczyk was permitted to submit his personal calendar to Miller Johnson and
although that personal calendar purports to show various blocks of regular and overtime hours
worked, the calendar contains little or no explanation of what he did during those shifts, much
less evidence that the explanations on the calendar are accurate. Additionally, because
Adamczyk had access to and was permitted to use Altaheri’s electronic signature, he was able to
complete and approve many of his own overtime slips without any other sort of
contemporaneous oversight. Nonetheless, information we reviewed indicates that Adamczyk
may have overstated his overtime.

As a general matter, and as referenced elsewhere in this report, Altaheri appointed

Adamczyk to a special assignment with the Detroit Police Department’s Commercial Auto Theft
Section (CATS). We were unable to confirm the date of his appointment. In his interview,
Adamczyk stated that he was appointed to CATS sometime toward the end of 2024 or in January
of 2025. Additionally, Adamczyk sent emails to other HPD officers in February 2025 indicating
that he was already working with CATS. A letter to the CATS task force dated March 4, 2025,
however, seems to contradict these assertions. The letter is addressed to a commanding officer
with CATS and is intended to notify that officer of Adamczyk’s placement with the task force.
The letter is purportedly signed by Altaheri using his electronic signature (to which Adamczyk
had access).

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 47 | P a g e

 Regardless of when his placement took effect, Adamczyk did not report CATS-related
overtime until March 4, 2025, the same day as the placement letter. Then, between March 4 and
April 10, 2025, Adamczyk reported 90.5 hours of CATS-related overtime, spread across 12
different days. This concentrated overtime over a short period contradicts information provided
by witnesses who described Adamczyk as having rarely reported for, or performed, any CATS-
related work. According to more than one witness, members of CATS referred to Adamczyk as
“PT,” which stood for “part-time,” a reference to his minimal participation with the task force.

CATS, however, did not respond to any inquiries regarding documentation or

corroboration of Adamczyk’s time and duties there. Thus, to evaluate Adamczyk’s CATS-related
overtime, Miller Johnson relied on a different source: the GPS location data on Adamczyk’s
City-issued phone. Because it was Adamczyk’s work phone, he would have needed it with him
when working. Miller Johnson thus analyzed the phone’s GPS location data on the days in
question and compared it with the hours claimed on Adamczyk’s overtime slips, HPD reports of
Adamczyk’s overtime, and Adamczyk’s personal calendar. Of the twelve days analyzed, Miller
Johnson identified at least two days with entries raising suspicions that Adamczyk’s CATS-
related overtime was overstated: March 18, 2025, and April 3, 2025.

For March 18, 2025, Adamczyk reported working 9 hours for CATS, in addition to his
regular 8-hour shift with HPD, for a total of 17 hours. HPD’s records show that Adamczyk was
paid for both his regular shift and the reported 9 hours of overtime. On his overtime slip, signed
using Altaheri’s electronic signature, Adamczyk stated that he worked those 9 hours between
5:00 p.m. on March 18 and 2:00 a.m. on March 19:

The GPS location data from Adamczyk’s City-issued phone is inconsistent with his claim
to have been working 9 hours of overtime for CATS during that time. According to that data,
Adamczyk was at his house in Sterling Heights between 6:07 p.m. on March 18 and 8:12 a.m.
the next morning, March 19. The entry on the personal calendar that Adamczyk provided to
Miller Johnson similarly does not evince any CATS-related overtime.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 48 | P a g e

 For April 3, 2025, Adamczyk reported working his regular 8-hour shift plus another 8
hours for CATS. HPD’s records show that Adamczyk was paid for both his regular shift and the
reported 8 hours of overtime. On his overtime slip, signed using Altaheri’s electronic signature,
Adamczyk stated that he worked these 8 hours of CATS-related overtime between 10:00 p.m. on
April 3 and 6:00 a.m. on April 4:

His personal calendar reflects an entry for the same CATS-related block of time. Again,
however, the GPS information from Adamczyk’s City-issued phone shows that he was at his
house from 5:19 p.m. on April 3 until 9:50 a.m. on April 4.

To be fair to Adamczyk, the GPS location data from the other dates largely supports his
other CATS-related overtime slips—at least on its face. But because that location data reflects
that Adamczyk regularly carried his City-issued phone with him when performing CATS-related
work, it appears unlikely that Adamczyk merely forgot his phone at home on the two dates in
question above. Moreover, on March 18, Adamczyk reported starting his overtime shift at 5:00
p.m., but the GPS location data shows the phone back at his house starting at 6:07 p.m.—over an
hour after his overtime shift reportedly began. It is unlikely that he dropped off and forgot his
phone at home an hour into his shift. We are also aware of no evidence suggesting that
Adamczyk was performing CATS-related work from home during the two time periods in
question, although it is impossible to know for sure without contemporaneous documentation of
what he was doing.

CATS would also have been a tempting target for overtime abuse, because both Altaheri
and Adamczyk appear to have been under the misimpression that at least some of Adamczyk’s
CATS time would be reimbursed to HPD under the terms of a grant. So they would have
believed that those amounts, even if submitted fraudulently, would not hit HPD’s budget.
Unfortunately for the City, however, neither Altaheri nor Adamczyk paid attention to the grant
terms or the paperwork necessary for such an arrangement. Thus, one witness explained to Miller
Johnson that the City has not been reimbursed for Adamczyk’s CATS-related time—and likely

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 49 | P a g e

never will be—meaning that any of Adamczyk’s CATS-related overtime payments, abusive or
not, came entirely from City coffers.

There is also evidence that Adamczyk overstated his overtime for his special assignment
with the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office. Available records show that Adamczyk reported
overtime for work related to that assignment on February 15, 17, and 20. Miller Johnson was
unable to confirm Adamczyk’s work for these three dates, but the Wayne County commander
told Miller Johnson that Adamczyk never performed any surveillance or other investigative work
for the task force and never notified his task-force supervisor of any investigations he was
working.

Additionally, following the breakdown in the relationship between Altaheri and

Adamczyk, Altaheri arranged a meeting with Wayne County officials to determine whether
Adamczyk was working the assignment. According to a witness to that meeting, Wayne County
officials told HPD officials that Adamczyk had sent only one email between November 2024 and
May 2025 and never showed up. For his part, Adamczyk claimed in his interview that although
he was deputized by Wayne County, it “was never an assignment.” That admission is difficult to
square with the three overtime periods that he claimed for that assignment in February.

At least one other overtime submission by Adamczyk raises additional questions. On

January 12, 2025, Adamczyk accompanied Altaheri to retrieve Altaheri’s belongings from his
house, as part of Altaheri’s ongoing difficulties with the mother of his child. On a dispatch
recording, Adamczyk can be heard bypassing the on-duty HPD dispatcher and deciding to call a
particular sergeant about it. Adamczyk’s body camera then recorded the events at Altaheri’s
house and shows that the two men were there for at least a 10-minute stretch on that date,
starting shortly after 4:00 p.m. Yet the justification for Adamczyk’s overtime slip for this same
time period is “stolen auto”:

Adamczyk’s body-camera footage does not show any signs of a “stolen auto”
investigation during this time. This particular overtime slip was also approved by a different

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 50 | P a g e

supervisor than Altaheri, which was occasionally true for Adamczyk on other dates but raises
some questions about why he took that approach here.

The evidence that Adamczyk overstated or misstated his overtime is also loosely
corroborated by Altaheri’s focus on Adamczyk’s overtime when the rift developed between the
two men in April and May 2025. Altaheri and Adamczyk were “attached at the hip,” as one
witness put it, and Adamczyk had used Altaheri’s electronic signature on his overtime slips
without any oversight or second-guessing. Indeed, included in the documents reviewed by Miller
Johnson were blank overtime slips for Adamczyk that were pre-signed with Altaheri’s electronic
signature:

Given their close relationship and those documented facts, Altaheri was almost certainly
aware that Adamczyk might have been submitting overtime for hours not actually worked. Thus,
when Adamczyk finally released his allegations against Altaheri, Altaheri appears to have
responded in turn against Adamczyk.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 51 | P a g e

 5. Other miscellaneous allegations against Adamczyk

The investigation was inconclusive regarding the other allegations of Adamczyk’s

misconduct. The records of Adamczyk’s investigative activity did not permit a conclusion on
whether or to what extent any of it was unauthorized or involved improper or unauthorized
access to sensitive information. The allegations that Adamczyk engaged in unprofessional
conduct were partially substantiated, as described above, but given that the conduct occurred in a
broader context of Altaheri’s own misconduct, and the possibility that some orders might not
have been “lawful,” HPD Rule 2.11(J), a finding of “insubordination” is not clearly warranted.

One officer described an incident, in detail, in which he claimed that Adamczyk

suggested committing insurance fraud as a way for the officer to maintain his salary and position
while recovering from an injury. When asked during his interview, Adamczyk vehemently
denied doing so and offered a plausible alternative story about what had transpired. Given
Adamczyk’s lack of candor and professionalism, there are reasons to doubt his account. But
without any additional evidence corroborating either story, we decline to make a finding based
on the incident.

E. Allegations Against City Manager Max Garbarino

The investigation did not substantiate the initial allegations against City Manager Max
Garbarino. It did, however, identify several instances in which Garbarino exercised poor
judgment for a City Manager and in which his conduct diverged from his obligations to
supervise Altaheri under the Hamtramck City Charter and City policies. His personal request that
Altaheri consider hiring Adamczyk—and his blinders about how Adamczyk’s hiring would
negatively affect HPD culture and morale—contributed to the considerable disfunction that
ultimately befell the department. Likewise, considering his position and authority, Garbarino
should have acted more quickly when learning about Altaheri’s (and later Adamczyk’s) alleged
significant misconduct that was pervasive through the police department.

The City Manager serves as the chief executive officer of the City and is responsible for
overseeing the daily operations of all municipal departments. Key responsibilities for Garbarino
include, but are not limited to, directly supervising department heads, including the Police Chief
and other key supervisory personnel, promoting ethical leadership, transparency, and
accountability, and upholding the highest standards of integrity and professionalism, with the
expectation of being held to a higher standard of conduct due to the public trust inherent in the
position.

With this heightened responsibility as City Manager in mind, the allegations against
Garbarino are discussed below.

1. Acting imprudently with respect to Adamczyk’s hiring

Garbarino and Adamczyk overlapped briefly as patrol officers during Adamczyk’s

previous stint at HPD in the early 2000s. When they met, Adamczyk had already been involved
in an incident with another officer involving the abuse of a suspect. Among other things, the
suspect’s head had been pushed through the glass window on the front door of HPD
headquarters. Adamczyk and the other officer blamed each other for the assault. Adamczyk then

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 52 | P a g e

claimed that other officers told him to lie about the incident and that he became so uncomfortable
with their instructions that he reached out to the Michigan State Police. The other officers,
including one who spoke with Miller Johnson, claimed that Adamczyk realized that he was in
serious trouble for what had happened and decided to pin all of the blame on the other officer
and accuse other officers of participating in a cover-up, so that Adamczyk could shift the focus
from his own culpability.

What actually happened during and after the above incident is beyond the scope of this
investigation. What matters here is that the other officer was convicted of criminal charges for
the incident, partly on the basis of Adamczyk’s testimony. Adamczyk then became a pariah
within HPD: other officers did not trust him, and Adamczyk left HPD employment and sued the
City for what he viewed as retaliation. Adamczyk and the City ultimately entered into a
separation agreement, and Adamczyk started his private-investigator business.

Garbarino was not yet working for HPD during the above incident but learned about it
second-hand—primarily through Adamczyk, who gave Garbarino his own version of the events.
And when Garbarino left City employment abruptly in March 2015, Adamczyk gave him a job
and helped him get started in the private sector. The two men then maintained a close
professional relationship.

When Garbarino returned to City employment, he tried to return the favor to Adamczyk
by helping Adamczyk get rehired as an HPD officer. According to Garbarino, he spoke with
then-Police Chief Anne Moise about that possibility on two or three occasions, but she ultimately
made clear that she did not intend to hire Adamczyk. Adamczyk eventually managed to obtain an
interview for the position with Moise, though. According to Adamczyk, he interviewed with
Moise and two other officers and thought that his candidacy would be well received, but when
the interview did not go well, he called Moise and withdrew his candidacy. Another officer who
participated in that interview confirmed that it did not go well—in part because the officers were
concerned about Adamczyk’s reputation and in part because Adamczyk’s answers about why he
wanted to come back did not make sense. Adamczyk had purportedly done well with his private-
investigator business, and the officers did not understand why Adamczyk wanted to return to the
line at HPD at this point in his career. So Adamczyk was not hired.

After Altaheri became the Police Chief, though, Adamczyk reached out to Garbarino, and
Garbarino asked Adamczyk if he wanted to throw his hat in the ring again. According to
Adamczyk, Garbarino offered to “make a phone call” on his behalf but said that an introduction
was all that he was willing to do, as he did not want to have “a heavy hand” in the hiring
decision. Garbarino then introduced Adamczyk to Altaheri. Garbarino claims that he made it
very clear to Altaheri that he was just asking Altaheri to “meet the guy,” and that if Altaheri did
not want to hire him, it was “perfectly fine.” Garbarino briefly told Altaheri about Adamczyk’s
background while also stating that Altaheri should do his “own research” on Adamczyk and
decide whether to hire him.

By his own admission, Garbarino did not try to obtain Adamczyk’s prior personnel file
before making that introduction. Garbarino also admitted to Miller Johnson that Adamczyk was
his principal source of information regarding what happened during his prior stint with HPD and
that he did not seek any corroboration for Adamczyk’s account. Garbarino claimed that no one

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 53 | P a g e

contradicted that impression. Garbarino knew that some officers did not like Adamczyk, but
Garbarino claimed that they had never explained why. However, Garbarino did not ask one of
the officers who had witnessed the incident (and who was still working for HPD) about his
version of the events. Garbarino simply rejected the idea that bringing Adamczyk back would
harm officer morale, citing his own personal views and noting that nearly 20 years had passed
and only a few of the current HPD officers personally knew Adamczyk. While he acknowledged
that some people did not like Adamczyk, Garbarino told Miller Johnson that he believed
Adamczyk was a good person and genuinely interested in returning to HPD as a police officer.
Garbarino also minimized the other officers’ resistance to Adamczyk’s rehiring, noting that there
were only “a couple people” who did not like Adamczyk.

Many of Garbarino’s statements on those points were not credible. Officers

overwhelmingly (not just one or two) expressed to Miller Johnson that they were uncomfortable
with Adamczyk’s rehiring and did not trust Adamczyk, and several of those officers emphasized
that they told or suggested as much to Garbarino directly. In addition, Adamczyk’s reputation
among most other HPD officers was—and remains—so poor that it is highly unlikely that their
concerns did not reach Garbarino. Garbarino, moreover, conceded that he felt bad for Adamczyk
and believed he had been wronged by the City, despite never taking the time to investigate
Adamczyk’s history or review his personnel file before pressing for his reinstatement. In
prioritizing personal loyalty and sympathy for Adamczyk over what was best for HPD and the
City, Garbarino allowed personal considerations to override his obligation to act in the City’s
best interests. And when Garbarino was pressed during his interview, he ultimately conceded
that, with the benefit of hindsight, he might not recommend rehiring Adamczyk today.

Altaheri also bears some responsibility for the decision to rehire Adamczyk. He also
disregarded other officers’ concerns, and by his own admission at his interview, he did not care
about the circumstances concerning Adamczyk’s prior stint with HPD and did not ask to see
Adamczyk’s prior personnel file. Altaheri just knew that the City Manager—his new
supervisor—wanted him to rehire Adamczyk as a “favor.” Thus, after a few meetings with
Adamczyk, Altaheri agreed to rehire Adamczyk as long as Adamczyk passed his background
investigation (which he did).

Garbarino, though, deserves much of the blame for the rehiring decision. There was no
sound business reason for Garbarino to push to rehire Adamczyk, given the circumstances of his
departure and the many questions raised about him. Indeed, Adamczyk’s recent conduct echoes
what he was accused of doing during his prior stint with HPD: committing misconduct with
another officer, realizing that he was in trouble, and then using his front-row seat to that
misconduct as leverage to gain what he needed while minimizing his own role. And Garbarino’s
account of Adamczyk’s rehiring minimizes the pressure that a supervisor’s “introduction” would
have on a relatively new subordinate, which Altaheri was when Garbarino introduced Adamczyk
to him. In fact, this was one of the few topics on which Altaheri seemed credible (and even
somewhat sympathetic): that Altaheri felt pressure to hire Adamczyk as a favor to Garbarino, in
part to establish a good rapport with his new supervisor. None of that excuses Altaheri’s own
conduct, whether with Adamczyk or separately. Nor does it excuse Adamczyk’s conduct. But
Garbarino’s push to hire Adamczyk reflected a serious error in judgment, particularly in light of
Garbarino’s position and heightened responsibility as City Manager.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 54 | P a g e

 2. Placing Altaheri on administrative leave

For this investigation, Miller Johnson was asked to determine whether Garbarino placed
Altaheri on administrative leave too quickly—without sufficient justification or due process. The
investigation did not substantiate that allegation. When Garbarino acted on May 21, 2025, he had
every reason to place both Altaheri and Adamczyk on administrative leave, given the seriousness
of the alleged misconduct and their respective roles in it. The dueling and increasingly public
accusations between Altaheri and Adamczyk (and others) had also created chaos within City
government.

Garbarino had the responsibility to act and was required to do so. The Hamtramck City
Charter is unequivocal that the City Manager is responsible for supervising the Police Chief.
Section 10-03 of the Charter states that “[t]he chief of police shall at all times be subject to the
supervision of the city manager.” Section 5-01(g) likewise states that “[a]ll department heads”—
including the police chief—“shall be subject to the administration and under the jurisdiction of
the city manager.” Section 9-16(a) similarly provides that the police chief “shall be responsible
for the faithful performance of his duties to the city manager.” And Section 9-18(a)(2) makes the
City Manager “responsible” for supervising all “department heads” and ensuring that “all such
officers of the city faithfully comply with and discharge their official duties.” When a
department head does not faithfully perform those duties, the City Manager is expressly
permitted to “suspend or remove” him. Hamtramck City Charter § 9-18(a)(1).

Garbarino was therefore required to “suspend or remove” Altaheri upon “deem[ing] it

necessary for the good of the City,” id., and it was necessary for him to do so here. Garbarino
reasonably chose a “suspen[sion],” putting Altaheri and Adamczyk on paid administrative leave
pending an investigation, rather than terminating them outright. And despite what Garbarino now
claims in his lawsuit, paid administrative leave is different from termination, as Garbarino
undoubtedly knew when he made that decision. The investigation revealed nothing to suggest
that Garbarino put Altaheri on administrative leave too soon.

In fact, the opposite is true. If anything, the evidence indicated that Garbarino waited too
long to put Altaheri and Adamczyk on administrative leave. As just emphasized, the City Charter
required Garbarino to supervise Altaheri and gave him the responsibility to suspend or remove
Altaheri and Adamczyk from City employment if they were engaged in misconduct. City
policies likewise contemplate “corrective action” of varying degrees when a supervisor becomes
aware of a subordinate’s misconduct. See City Policy 8.18. Here, Garbarino became aware (as
did much of the police department), soon after it happened, that Altaheri changed an officer’s
disciplinary decision because the officer had a compromising video of Altaheri. One witness
confirmed to Miller Johnson that the witness spoke with Garbarino shortly after the incident and
that Garbarino knew why the officer’s disciplinary decision had been changed. And although
Garbarino disapproved of what had happened, he was worried about possible repercussions for
his own employment if he intervened.

Garbarino thus knew in January 2025 that he had an immediate subordinate—the Police
Chief, no less—who had been compromised by alleged significant misconduct. Garbarino had an
obligation under the City Charter and City policies to step in, investigate what happened, and
suspend or remove Altaheri and any others involved in it. Garbarino’s failure to do so also

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 55 | P a g e

appears to have emboldened Adamczyk a few months later, when Adamczyk tried to exercise his
own leverage over Altaheri. Garbarino’s inaction contributed to a climate within the department
that excused or overlooked misconduct, allowed leadership to use their positions for personal
benefit, and did not comport with his responsibilities under the City Charter and City policies. It
also put the City at an increased risk of liability for Altaheri’s escalating misconduct.

Further, Garbarino admitted that he had concerns about Altaheri’s drinking and that other
City employees had commented that Altaheri often came to work smelling of alcohol—not
necessarily drunk, but still smelling of alcohol. Using or being under the influence of alcohol
while on duty violates numerous City Policies. E.g., City Policy 8.6. The core objective of the
City’s progressive discipline policy, set out in City Policy 8.18, is to rectify performance issues
and prevent their recurrence. By failing to initiate a discussion about his concerns and consider,
as appropriate, imposing lower-level discipline such as a warning, Garbarino failed to carry out
his supervisory duties.

Finally, Garbarino also delayed in putting Altaheri and Adamczyk on administrative

leave in May 2025 after learning about Adamczyk’s allegations. Some initial delay in acting on
the allegations might have been warranted, given the involvement of law enforcement and that
the allegations were so unusual and explosive that it was reasonable for Garbarino to be
concerned (as he told Miller Johnson) that they might tarnish Altaheri’s reputation unfairly if
they quickly proved false. But it soon became apparent, well before May 21, 2025, that the
dueling allegations between Altaheri and Adamczyk were serious, had become widely known,
and were undermining the effective operation of City government.

The investigators can appreciate that Garbarino’s delay may have been driven, in part, by
advice from the City Attorney, who urged caution before placing Altaheri on leave given the
uncertainty about the allegations. Miller Johnson is also not naïve about the risks of hindsight
bias or the damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t dilemma that Garbarino believed he faced.
As Garbarino noted, Altaheri was initially hired over Garbarino’s objections and out of
conformance with the City Charter. See Hamtramck City Charter § 10-02 (“The city manager
shall appoint a chief of police . . . .”); Hamtramck City Charter § 5-01(f) (“All appointed
department heads”—including the “police chief”—“shall be appointed by the city manager,
subject to approval by a majority vote of the council- and mayor-elect.”). Altaheri also had
support from the community and maintained a positive relationship with some City leaders.
Thus, Garbarino was reasonably concerned that disciplining Altaheri could jeopardize his own
job. However, his role as City Manager did not allow Garbarino to consider those personal
repercussions in place of timely and effectively performing his job. Any municipality with a
healthy culture of ethics and compliance would have expected more immediate intervention in
the circumstances here. The misconduct by Altaheri and Adamczyk reflect a failure not only at
the individual level but also in leadership oversight and accountability.

3. Garbarino’s prior separation agreement with the City

The investigation did not substantiate the allegations that Garbarino breached or
improperly concealed his prior separation agreement with the City when he returned to City
employment in late 2019. Garbarino and the City entered into that prior separation agreement on
March 11, 2015, when Garbarino resigned from employment as the City’s Police Chief.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 56 | P a g e

Paragraph five of that agreement included a “waiver” of Garbarino’s “right to future employment
with Hamtramck”: “Garbarino waives any right to be rehired by, nor [sic] reapply for any
position with the City and agrees that he will not apply for employment with [the] City in the
future, and if he does so, this Separation Agreement will constitute adequate consideration for
the city to deny his application for employment.”

During his interview with Miller Johnson, Garbarino explained that the City Manager
who rehired him in 2019, Kathy Angerer, was aware of the prior separation agreement when she
invited him back to City employment to fill the newly created position of Director of Community
Safety and Services. Garbarino also explained that the then-City Attorney, Jim Allen, and the
City Council members at the time also knew about the separation agreement and did not view it
as an obstacle to rehiring Garbarino. He did not recall specific discussions about the waiver-of-
rehiring provision, but he explained that the separation agreement was well known among the
decision-makers who rehired him. He also noted that at least one of the current City Council
members was part of that discussion and favored rehiring him.

Contemporaneous evidence corroborates Garbarino’s account. Garbarino’s rehiring was

publicly and hotly debated at the City Council meeting on November 26, 2019, and the prior
separation agreement was a core part of that discussion. The recorded discussion includes several
references to the waiver-of-rehiring provision, with the City Attorney explaining that “the parties
to an agreement”—the City and Garbarino—“can always change the terms of their agreement
after they make the agreement, as long as it’s mutual.” The City Council and the Mayor then
voted 5-2 in favor Resolution 2019-109, approving Garbarino’s rehiring and new employment
agreement with the City.

The City Attorney was correct. Under Michigan law, parties to a contract are permitted to
waive or modify a prior contract, as long as they mutually agree to do so. Quality Prods. &
Concepts Co. v. Nagel Precision, Inc., 469 Mich. 362, 364, 666 N.W.2d 251, 253 (2003). They
can agree to do so through a “written agreement.” Id. at 364–65. Garbarino’s new employment
agreement—approved by the City Council—was thus a permissible means of waiving or
modifying his previous separation agreement with the City. And paragraph ten of Garbarino’s
new employment agreement stated that it “supersedes” and is a “substitute” and “successor” for
“all prior agreements” related to the “subject matter” of Garbarino’s new employment. By its
terms, then, that new employment agreement superseded the prior separation agreement’s
waiver-of-rehiring provision.

4. Other miscellaneous allegations of misconduct

The evidence did not substantiate other allegations of misconduct regarding Garbarino’s
tenure as City Manager, including the allegations in the document titled, “Urgent Concerns
Regarding the Conduct and Actions of City Manager Max Garbarino, and Request for Immediate
Action.” The allegations were circulated shortly after Garbarino was placed on administrative
leave. They were then forwarded to Miller Johnson. Some of those allegations have already been
addressed above in various ways. The remainder were not substantiated, and a couple of them
are worth noting.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 57 | P a g e

 First, the investigation did not uncover any evidence that Garbarino inappropriately
ordered investigations or used HPD resources for improper purposes, including as to any
investigations involving City officials. As explained above, the City Charter entrusts the City
Manager with a supervisory role over the Police Chief, requiring the City Manager to “be
responsible for the efficient administration of all departments of the city government, control and
supervise the department heads of the city government that he appoints and their subordinates,
and see that all such officers of the city faithfully comply with and discharge their official duties,
except as otherwise provided by this charter or state law.” Hamtramck City Charter § 9-18(a)(2).
In addition to that supervisory role, section 33.003(B) of the Hamtramck City Code permits the
City Manager to “assign other duties and responsibilities to the Police Department as necessary
for the operation of the city.” The City Manager is therefore permitted to request HPD’s
assistance on City-related matters not ordinarily within HPD’s day-to-day responsibilities.

Witness interviews and contemporaneous documents also showed that, when Garbarino
requested HPD’s assistance in that fashion, Altaheri was aware of it. And for most of the time in
question, Altaheri supported and endorsed Garbarino’s requests, including on many of the
matters described in the allegations identified above. Altaheri appears to have backed away from
that position shortly before being put on administrative leave, but it was a change from his
previous views.

Second, the evidence did not substantiate the allegations that Garbarino improperly
accessed private records or enforced the Hamtramck City Code or other laws selectively. Income
tax enforcement is never popular, but the investigation uncovered no evidence that either
Garbarino or the City’s income tax administrator targeted any individuals or groups unfairly. The
same is true of Garbarino’s enforcement of City requirements for candidates running for office.
The investigation uncovered no evidence that Garbarino unfairly targeted particular candidates
or failed to enforce those requirements uniformly. To the contrary, Garbarino and the City Clerk
appear to have attempted to help candidates come into compliance with City requirements such
that they could appear on the ballot.

5. Conduct at the City Council meeting on June 10, 2025

Garbarino’s conduct at the City Council meeting on June 10, 2025, did not violate any
laws or policies. Resolution 2025-68, by which the City Council put Garbarino on administrative
leave, did not include any restrictions on his attendance at City Council meetings (even assuming
it could). The meeting on June 10, 2025, was also open to the public, as required by Michigan
law. See MCL 15.263. Because it was an open meeting, a person could be excluded from it only
for “a breach of the peace actually committed at the meeting.” MCL 15.263(6). A “breach of the
peace” involves “seriously disruptive conduct involving abusive, disorderly, dangerous,
aggressive, or provocative speech and behaviors tending to threaten or incite violence.”
Cusumano v. Dunn, No. 349959, 2020 WL 5079615, at *7 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2020). A
“breach of the peace” can also include “an audience-wide uproar” that prevents the meeting from
taking place or continuing. Youkhanna v. City of Sterling Heights, 934 F.3d 508, 522 (6th Cir.
2019). But under Michigan law, a “breach of the peace” requires conduct “go[ing] well beyond
behavior acceptable in a civil society.” Dunn, 2020 WL 5079615, at *7.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 58 | P a g e

 The investigation did not uncover evidence that Garbarino’s conduct on June 10, 2025,
rose to a “breach of the peace.” His presence at the meeting was unhelpful in raising the
temperature of what was happening. By that date, this independent investigation was well
underway, and a more measured approach would have simply allowed that investigation to run
its course. But the witness interviews and recording of the meeting did not uncover any evidence
that Garbarino made any threats or engaged in conduct “well beyond behavior acceptable in a
civil society,” even when told to leave. Dunn, 2020 WL 5079615, at *7.

Garbarino’s decision to bring his concealed firearm to the meeting, however,

demonstrated poor judgment. Michigan law generally permits licensed individuals to carry a
concealed pistol in this context, see MCL 28.425o, and no one has suggested that Garbarino used
or threatened anyone with his firearm. But in an era of mass shootings and the circumstances
surrounding his employment relationship with the City, someone with Garbarino’s experience
should at least appreciate the concerns that might arise when a recently suspended employee
shows up armed to the next public meeting held by the people who suspended him.

IV. Conclusion

As explained above, the investigation substantiated some of the allegations and did not
substantiate others.

Based on the evidence analyzed during the investigation, Altaheri and Adamczyk
engaged in significant misconduct that warrants corrective action beyond their current
administrative leave. As to Altaheri and Adamczyk, Miller Johnson’s findings support corrective
action up to and including termination of employment subject to the City’s normal process and
procedures. Additionally, Garbarino’s failure to take timely corrective action with respect to
Altaheri was inconsistent with his duties as City Manager and affords a basis for discipline. As
an at-will employee, Garbarino is subject to the full range of discipline that may be imposed,
including termination. In his case, however, termination may carry heightened litigation risk due
to his whistleblower claims.

If the City takes corrective action against any of these employees, the City should be
mindful of applicable procedural requirements and litigation risk. First, Adamczyk’s
employment is subject to the terms of the City’s collective bargaining agreement with the HPD
union. Although in Miller Johnson’s view, the evidence of misconduct against Adamczyk is
sufficient to support corrective action including termination, the City must comply with the
CBA’s process and procedure. The CBA’s procedural requirements do not apply to Altaheri or
Garbarino, who are at-will employees, although the City must comply with their employment
agreements and its Charter’s polices and process regarding adverse employment actions. Second,
if the City terminates any of the employees’ employment, it will likely lead to additional claims
asserted against it in the pending civil employment lawsuit. Although as set forth above, Miller
Johnson believes that the City has business reasons to justify taking corrective action, to include
termination of all three employees’ employment, to varying degrees, taking such action may
increase risk associated with the pending lawsuit.

Miller Johnson is happy to provide additional guidance and legal advice to the City based
on the conclusions reached in this report.

City of Hamtramck / Attorney-Client Privileged & Confidential 59 | P a g e